Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HILL SAMUEL BANK AND UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

MALVERN HILLS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Diversification Strategies

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to study attempts at defence diversification strategies in other NATO states.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department has no plans for such a study.

Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for that surprising response. Given the money and effort that the Clinton Administration are putting into defence diversification in America, and given that last week's announcement meant the loss of 18,500 more jobs in defence-related industries in this country, why on earth will the Government not consider setting up a proper defence diversification agency to deal with some of the issues?

Mr. Aitken: I know that the idea of a defence diversification agency is the one and only policy that unites the entire Labour party. Labour puts the diversification agency first; we put the front line first.
However, the hon. Lady's bright idea is not very workable or sensible. For a start, such a study would really be a non-examination of non-strategies. No European NATO state has a defence diversification policy, for the simple reason that our partners believe—as we do—that such a policy is best decided on by industry, rather than Government trying to make decisions that are really the province of business.
As for the American experience, it has been much criticised. It covers a number of areas that are already covered by Government Departments in this country, such as resettlement for all service men. The Wall Street Journal recently described the American diversification policy as "unblemished by success".

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister for Industry obtained European Commission approval for intervention funding for the naval shipbuilders Swan Hunter for the construction of merchant vessels? In that context, will my hon. Friend take heart from the willingness of the owner of Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie in another NATO country— France—to invest in Swan Hunter if Her Majesty's Government will place the order for the refitting of the landing-ship logistics potential of the Sir Bedivere with Swan Hunter? Is not this a case of another NATO country's investment making unnecessary diversification funding?

Mr. Aitken: We have made it clear that foreign ownership is no bar to the future ownership of Swan Hunter. As for my hon. Friend's question about funding in general, that is properly the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has been extremely effective and sympathetic in trying to work out a policy for this difficult subject.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister feel no conscience at all about the tens of thousands of defence workers whom he sacked last week? Why does he refuse to contemplate establishing a defence diversification agency as part of a diversification strategy that would provide packages of assistance for the downsized defence communities, and also help the defence industry to diversify its technology and skill in the civil market? The United States has done it; the European Community has done it; why will not the British Government do it?

Mr. Aitken: The British Government have done something rather better. The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep lately. The question relates to defence diversification for industry, and if the hon. Gentleman had been awake he would have noticed that "Front Line First" announced either orders or invitations to tender that are worth more than £5 billion to British industry and that will underpin or create some 10,000 jobs in our defence industries. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to adopt a whingeing, carping tone when he should be welcoming the statement.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who call for a defence diversification agency have learnt nothing from the 1970s when Governments were unsuccessful at picking winners but adept at spending hundreds of millions of pound in trying to do so?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Labour party has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. It wants to take us back to the old days of clause 4 ideology, of looking after the means of production, distribution and exchange and back to the National Enterprise Board and quangos, all of them doing jobs much better done by industry itself.

Gulf War Syndrome

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an independent inquiry into Gulf war syndrome.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I have no intention of doing so, as there


remains no clinical evidence that those who served in the British armed forces in the Gulf conflict are suffering from unexplained symptoms that would call for such an inquiry.

Mr. Campbell: If the Americans have discovered that there is such a disease and are paying compensation to their armed forces, should not we be paying ours and taking a serious look at the problems facing them? Or is it the case that when there is a war, we wave the union flag and tell our lads how good they are before they go abroad to fight and call them heroes, but turn our back on them when they need our help? It is always the same with this Government and they have been 50-faced on this issue—let us pay our lads now.

Mr. Hanley: Two points need to be made in answer to that question. First, in July last year I invited anyone who believed that he was suffering from the syndrome to which the hon. Gentleman referred to come forward. In the whole of last year, 52 people came forward, of whom 27 have now seen medical examiners—their general practitioners —and 17 have been found to be suffering from recognised health conditions, none of them peculiar to their service in the Gulf. Solicitors have also put forward the names of some 300 further people, but we have not been given details about them and they have not submitted themselves to medical examination. We are, therefore, trying to do all that we can to ascertain whether their illnesses have been caused by anything that happened in the Gulf, but, at the moment, the evidence is to the contrary.
Secondly, on the American evidence, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is taking the words of Back Benchers —be they Senators or Congressmen—and making them into a claim by the Pentagon. There is absolutely no evidence from the United States that there is a "syndrome", and there is certainly no scientific or medical evidence of chemical or biological warfare being deployed against us, on any level.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not it the case that the shells that have been accused of causing the syndrome are made of depleted heavy metals with a lower atomic number than the normal isotope? Would not anyone with an A-level or even an O-level in physics know that there is less radioactivity in such shells than in the luminous dial of an average watch?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the possible causes of any so-called Gulf war syndrome was depleted uranium shells and that the toxicity of depleted uranium is similar to that of lead.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that there may be a case for an investigation, not necessarily into what happened to British troops in the Gulf but into pre-medication against possible poison gas attacks? Is not there something that we could learn for the future?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that yet another suspected cause of a possible syndrome were the injections given to our troops before they left. It has all been investigated carefully, and the Surgeon General recently wrote to the British Medical Journal to say that there was absolutely no evidence of any cause from the source to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Contracts

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of defence contracts has been awarded to United Kingdom companies; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Measured by volume, United Kingdom companies have been awarded 90 per cent. of the direct contracts placed by the Department during the past 12 months.

Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of how welcome the defence orders announcements have been in my constituency, where already Graseby Microsystems is supplying electronic equipment for Challenger tanks and Vinten is supplying reconnaissance pods for the Royal Air Force? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that they are immense technological spin-offs, wholly beneficial to British industry overall, and a result of our defence industry activities?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, far from the defence industries having taken for granted those announcements, they were extremely relieved to hear that the success of the "Front Line First" study had enabled us to confirm those orders, thereby securing up to 10,000 jobs and £5 billion worth of investment in those industries.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the course of his extensive statement last week, the Secretary of State referred to a number of procurement programmes, but made no reference to the Hercules replacement programme, to the attack helicopter or, indeed, the support helicopter, all of which, in their own way, are important to British companies. Can he confirm that those are still in the long-term costing? Will he tell us why they were not referred to last week? When may we expect decisions in respect of all three?

Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that all three are still in the programme. They were not referred to last Thursday because we had nothing new to say on those matters. We are considering the various tenders or continuing the contractual negotiations on the support and attack helicopters and we shall report to the House as soon as those are concluded. We are assessing the short-term requirements of transport aircraft in view of the age of the current Hercules fleet.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important thing of all is to buy the right equipment for our service men? As his answer shows, British industries are manufacturing the right equipment. However, there is also the question of mid-life updates and refits. For example, the Tornado GR1 refit is on order, which is a massive investment. There is also the question of the C-130J aircraft in which there is human British input.

Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case and we are anxious to ensure that United Kingdom defence industries, which are second to none in the world, as their export achievements demonstrate, should continue to have a strong home base to ensure that they can make the maximum contribution to the national interest.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Swan Hunter shipyard went into receivership more than a year ago. He will be aware of the heroic struggle for survival by the shipyard workers on Tyneside. He will be aware that that struggle will have cumulated after his decision to procure the Sir Bedivere at Swan Hunter or elsewhere. Is he now able to tell the House where the Sir Bedivere will be procured?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a question specifically on that matter on the Order Paper. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait.

Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the defence White Paper "Front Line First" offers a great opportunity for the civilian sector to get involved with basic pilot training? Is he aware of the excellent facilities at Prestwick, with the British Aerospace flying college?

Mr. Rifkind: There are indeed good opportunities for the private sector, including those at Prestwick. I also draw attention to the increased opportunities for local employment in Benbecula following the decision to retain the range and the likely increase of contractorisation there and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence has approached the United States Government with regard to the possibility of purchasing an American aircraft as an alternative to the Eurofighter 2000?

Mr. Rifkind: No, I will not confirm it because it is not true. As with the procurement of any large project, before coming to a final decision on production, we wish to be aware of the available alternatives. I must emphasise that Eurofighter remains the firm commitment of the British Government to meet the needs of the Royal Air Force in the next century.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of my constituents who work at British Aerospace were delighted by last week's announcement of the mid-life update of Tornado aircraft? They will also be made happier by the commitment that my right hon. and learned Friend has just given on Eurofighter 2000. They would be ecstatic if they were also given the opportunity to work on the replacement for the Hercules, if that large aircraft were given an opportunity to compete with the C-130J in future.

Mr. Rifkind: Ecstasy is not normally at the disposal of the Ministry of Defence. Even if we cannot provide ecstasy, we will certainly do our best to come to a sensible and wise decision about the matter that my hon. Friend raised.

Ex-service Personnel

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet colleagues from other Government Departments to discuss arrangements for ex-service men and women.

Mr. Hanley: We meet regularly to discuss a wide range of matters, including those relevant to ex-service men and women.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that our ex-service men and women deserve the very best possible treatment? Will he, therefore, pledge, as the Labour party has done, actively to consider setting up a special unit in the Ministry of Defence to look after their special needs?

Mr. Hanley: On the face of it, the idea is an attractive and intriguing suggestion, but it does not stand up to closer inspection. The reason is that we have the best health service in the world, the most comprehensive social security service in the world and fully comprehensive housing assistance. There is, therefore, no reason why any veteran should not find the answer to his or her problems. If there are deficiencies in any Department, veterans can discuss with Ministers ways in which to try to find solutions to them. Indeed, a number of Departments regularly talk to veterans. The Department of Social Security, for example, primarily has responsibility for war pensions. My noble Friend, Lord Astor, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, regularly meets representatives of the veterans' associations.

Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House of the impressive percentage of men and women leaving the armed services who then secure worthwhile and rewarding employment in other walks of life? Does he agree that the training, loyalty and discipline provided by the armed services are an extremely good base for further and future careers? Is not it a fact that entry to the armed services qualifies people not only for a rewarding career in the forces, but for a career thereafter?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He does a service to the House in reminding us all that the United Kingdom's defence forces are the best-trained work force in the United Kingdom. He also makes a good point when he says that many of those leaving the armed forces go into work quickly. The statistics are that 55 per cent. of those leaving the forces walk straight into a job and that 80 per cent. are employed within two months of leaving the armed forces. There is no doubt that being in the armed forces prepares one not only for defending the United Kingdom but for any other job, should one want to take it up.

Mr. Redmond: The Minister must be aware that with the closure of RAF Finningley, he will create much unemployment in Doncaster, especially among service personnel. Which Departments has he met to discuss the impact on unemployment of the closure of RAF Finningley? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that the RAF personnel there get a square deal?

Mr. Hanley: The closure is subject to consultation, and the consultation period of three months has now begun. We will willingly discuss with the unions and local people anything to do with the future of those who work at RAF Finningley. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, only a few weeks ago, I received a delegation including him, local council representatives and local developers when we discussed what plans there might be if the site became available. The hon. Gentleman is being most constructive in trying to help the local community to come to terms with that closure.

Bosnia

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces deployment in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: Planning is in hand to enable the 1st battalion of the Duke of Wellington's regiment to be replaced when its tour in Bosnia expires in September. Whether the replacement will go ahead will depend on the situation on the ground nearer the time and on prospects for an overall peace settlement. We will keep those matters under close review in the coming weeks.

Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the performance of Her Majesty's forces in Bosnia is very much to their credit and to the credit of this country, and that they are worthy of our permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations, of our role as an active member of NATO and of our role as a member of the contact group? Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that the British Government will have the continuing support of the public and of the House if they give the highest priority to the safety of our service men?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the UN sees the British forces as being among the most experienced, well-trained and committed of all those serving in Bosnia. We welcome that recognition, and we also recognise the important point that my hon. Friend made when he emphasised the paramount need to ensure the safety of our forces operating in the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Gapes: Given the remarks made by General Sir Michael Rose yesterday that if the 18,000 troops who are currently in Bosnia were withdrawn, they would have to be replaced by up to 50,000 combat troops, how many troops from this country do we have on standby ready to send in? What commitments does the Secretary of State have from the United States Government that they would support such an action, given that it is their proposal to lift the arms embargo that would precipitate it?

Mr. Rifkind: General Rose did not suggest, nor would the Government approve, the sending of British forces to Bosnia in a combat role. We have made it quite clear from the very beginning that there is no question of such a deployment.

Royal Air Force (Maintenance Duties)

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of private contractors in RAF maintenance duties.

Mr. Aitken: The overall performance of private contractors in carrying out maintenance work for the RAF is good. Only in a very small number of cases has quality fallen short of that required. In those rare cases, we seek either redress or rectification under the terms of the contract.

Mr. Jones: How can the Minister step up the rate of civilianisation of maintenance at RAF St. Athan when, last year, damage was done to Tornado aircraft which led to the loss of millions of pounds to the taxpayer? There is also deep unease among the 1,800 personnel at RAF Sealand in

my constituency at the likely pace of market testing and civilianisation. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no compulsory redundancies at RAF Sealand?

Mr. Aitken: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the great concern felt there, because not only are RAF workers doing maintenance jobs in his constituency but—as he often comes and tells me when he lobbies—a number of British Aerospace workers, whose skill he praises, are also employed there. We believe that there is no contradiction in the Government's policy of having some of our aircraft maintenance done by uniformed personnel and some by well-trained civilian personnel, such as the British Aerospace workers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is true that we are increasing the market testing programme, and we do not think that the isolated and regrettable episode that he described in any way suggests that the whole policy is wrong.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister ensure that, as RAF Stanmore Park is run down and closed, all the personnel on duty there will be RAF personnel until that moment comes?

Mr. Aitken: I will look into the point that my hon. Friend raises. I think that he is correct, but I will check the facts and write to him.

Mr. Hardy: Is not it the case that private contractors do not always provide the best buy, as was demonstrated not long ago at RAF Sealand? Will the Minister comment on the fact that some private contractors appear not to reinvest at all in training, and that they rely entirely on the recruitment of ex-service men who have skills learned in the services? As that pool dries up, will not the taxpayer find himself with a larger bill to pay for the training that some companies are failing to provide?

Mr. Aitken: We believe that there is an ample and adequate supply of skilled civilian aerospace workers to carry an increased share of RAF maintenance. We believe that it is right in terms of quality, and that it is also in the interests of the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns on behalf of RAF personnel many times, but, as "Front Line First" makes clear, we are determined to maintain an in-house capability for the maintenance and repair of RAF planes by RAF uniformed personnel.

Armed Forces (Stability)

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is a period of numerical and funding stability.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of stability. Last Thursday, we showed the Government's determination to preserve the fighting strength of our armed forces and to proceed with a programme of investment to maintain and enhance their operational effectiveness.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his response. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hands out of your pockets."] That is from a party that claims to support the disabled, as I am at the moment.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the very real concern in the armed forces that there should be


a period of stability henceforth. He will also know that many of his efficiency savings in the announcement last Thursday were welcomed by all who wish to see better armed forces. Does he accept that most Conservative Members will support him in any further determination to increase efficiency, but that they would also want defence expenditure to be maintained at its present level?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the continuing need to achieve greater efficiency and that we should ensure that any changes we make do not act to the detriment of the fighting strength of our armed forces.

Mr. Salmond: On the subject of numbers, is the Secretary of State aware of the phrase, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics?" In which category would he place his Department's estimate of 1,500 job losses in Scotland as a result of his review, when that total excludes the 800 jobs that are being transferred from Rosyth to Portsmouth? Would he care to revise the figures that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are peddling for defence job losses in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly do not see any need to revise the figures, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of two things. First, several weeks ago he was pontificating about 8,000 job losses in Scotland as a result of any announcement that the Government might make—he is now looking rather foolish. Secondly, as he goes around Scotland promising that the Rosyth naval base would be safeguarded in an independent Scotland, he conveniently forgets to point out that in the same independent Scotland he would close the Faslane base, which would mean at least 4,000 job losses in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In recognising the important contribution that the Territorial Army makes to our defence capabilities, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that "Front Line First" ensures that the numbers in the TA will be maintained during the next few years? Is he aware that in October the new headquarters of the Territorial Army will be opened in my constituency? That is evidence of the sort of investment that the Government are making in that important portion of our armed forces.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, the present formed unit strength of the Territorial Army is 59,000 and it is to remain at that strength. We plan an expanded role for the TA, as the pilot scheme that is being carried out in the Falkland islands clearly demonstrates.

Mr. Hutton: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the important contract to design and build a replacement for the Swiftsure class—the batch 2 programme—is now subject to a delay in excess of two years from the timetable that the Government originally announced? Can he tell my constituents and me, therefore, what measures he has in mind to minimise the adverse employment consequences that that delay will mean for my constituents?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, we announced a substantial number of naval orders. The company in his constituency can tender for any of those orders to which it feels able to respond, and it will be in exactly the same position as all other yards.

Rwanda

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he has received to provide troops for peacekeeping purposes in Rwanda.

Mr. Rifkind: We have received no requests to provide troops for the United Nations operation in Rwanda. In response to a UN request for vehicles, we have made 50 trucks available.

Mr. Luff: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend understands the strength of feeling that exists among all our constituents about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Rwanda. Does he also understand that, against the background of the many demands on British forces around the world, there is general support for the view that Francophone countries should take prime responsibility for the situation in Rwanda? Can he assure the House that any requests for specialist miliary assistance that may be forthcoming will be looked on as sympathetically as possible, as was implied in his answer?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, naturally we would do so because we understand the scale of the human tragedy that is unfolding in Rwanda. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has committed more than £.11 million bilaterally to help in Rwanda since the crisis began. Relief flights are being sent, containing vehicles, personnel, blankets, plastic sheeting and water carriers. Following yesterday's mortar attack, the closure of Goma airport is delaying their arrival, but flights are being pre-positioned in the region and will fly on to Goma as soon as possible to minimise the delay in delivering those essential supplies.

Mr. Foulkes: If we can send a task force to rescue the Falklands and mobilise huge efforts for the Gulf, surely the British Government can pull out all the stops for the dreadful tragedy that is taking place in Rwanda. Cannot the Secretary of State get together with the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers and make every possible effort to save the millions of people whose lives are threatened in that appalling tragedy?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that the problem is a humanitarian one requiring a humanitarian response. I have just reported to the House on the steps that are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I am sure that the United Kingdom can hold its head high for the contribution that it is making in helping to minimise the dreadful suffering in Rwanda.

Royal Yacht

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the decision on the future of the Royal Yacht Britannia.

Mr. Hanley: We are currently considering the future of the royal yacht Britannia following her decommissioning in 1997.

Mr. Winterton: Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, it adds little to what we know already. Does not he accept that the royal yacht Britannia is a floating trade ambassador for the United Kingdom? It brings immense status to the UK wherever it goes and it


brings great wealth to the economy of our country. Is not it important that the royal yacht Britannia is either completely refurbished and upgraded, or that a new royal yacht is produced for this country? It is worth every penny that we spend on it.

Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the royal yacht, but even he must recognise that it is now a very aged craft and that it would cost about £17 million to refit, which would extend its life by about only five years. I remind my hon. Friend that the royal yacht has a crew of 220 and that the crew even of a type 23 frigate is some 40 fewer. The costs involved, therefore, must be carefully considered. The royal yacht's trade promotion activities are a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and they are without dispute. Her Majesty's foreign travel needs are a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is an important matter and must be carefully considered in the months ahead.

Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister recall my letter to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence suggesting that the royal yacht Britannia should receive a comfortable and dignified retirement as befits her age in the new maritime heritage centre and marina at Hartlepool? Is he aware that I have discussed the matter personally with Her Majesty the Queen who has expressed her interest in that? Will the Minister confirm—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is proud, but he should not be divulging conversations that he has had with Her Majesty.

Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's private secretary has graciously given me permission to disclose that information? Will the Government, therefore, confirm that they will consider the option most positively?

Mr. Hanley: If such are Her Majesty's instructions, I could do no less.

Madam Speaker: It is the Speaker of the House who rules here and not Her Majesty's private secretary.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Bearing in mind the importance of the royal yacht Britannia to our trade promotion prospects, will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts in his discussion with his hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether some private finance from firms that are likely to benefit from exports could be brought in so that a new royal yacht Britannia could be commissioned?

Mr. Hanley: I can say to my hon. Friend only that that is one of the matters that will be considered. The trade promotion activities of the royal yacht Britannia have been second to none. She has earned billions of pounds of contracts in travelling around the world and we must not lose sight of that. Exactly what the relevance is, however, to Her Majesty's transport needs around the world is a different subject.

United Nations (Peacekeeping)

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the peacekeeping abilities of the United Nations.

Mr. Rifkind: The United Nations Secretary-General has identified a need to strengthen the UN's capacity to conduct peace support operations and has invited proposals from member states. We have made a number of suggestions aimed at reinforcing the UN's ability to plan and run such operations, including an enhanced peacekeeping planning staff and the establishment of a situation centre.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Has he considered the possible establishment of a UN peacekeeping staff college and does he agree that this country is well suited to housing such an establishment?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure that the establishment of a staff college features high among the Secretary-General's priorities. Each country that sends forces to assist UN operations must ensure that it properly understands the needs of the UN, and in this way qualities similar to those that would be achieved by a staff college will be achieved.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the decision taken last week by the German constitutional court that German troops can take part in international peacekeeping operations? Does he agree that far from this causing any concern about the role of German troops, it shows their responsible return to a proper, institutionalised role in peacekeeping around the world?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend is correct. With the large increase in UN operations around the world, it is important that as many countries as possible, including Germany, contribute to United Nations operations. Against that background, the decision of the German constitutional court was very much to be welcomed.

Mr. Donald Anderson: In the light of the welcome decision of the federal constitutional court, will the Secretary of State consider holding early discussions with the German and French Governments about humanitarian and peacekeeping operations that might involve former members of the Warsaw treaty organisation, who are keen to have operational experience with NATO, possibly under the auspices of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council?

Mr. Rifkind: We are seized of the desirability of involving those countries. The United Kingdom is helping to train a Baltic battalion, with contributions from each of the three Baltic republics, which is intended to be used in UN operations.

Nuclear Testing

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the British nuclear test programme.

Mr. Aitken: There will be no nuclear testing while the United States moratorium continues and we will continue working towards an effective comprehensive test ban treaty.

Mr. Simpson: When the Defence Select Committee tells the House that there is no need for further nuclear testing and the United States moratorium shows that there is no chance of further testing, is the Minister not ashamed that the Government are making no commitment to the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty


before the start of the non-proliferation treaty conference next April? Will he give the House that commitment, and is he not ashamed that Britain is the only nuclear power that is having to be dragged into a commitment to a nuclear test ban timetable before the conference starts?

Mr. Aitken: We are not ashamed of any such thing. The United Kingdom is participating fully and positively in negotiations to secure an effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty. These discussions began on 26 January at the conference on disarmament in Geneva and we continue to participate fully in them.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's great skills in last week's announcement on the possible purchase of Tomahawk, but, if we buy Tomahawk, is there any possibility of its having any nuclear tipping?

Mr. Aitken: No, we have no intention of putting nuclear warheads on Tomahawk should its acquisition proceed.

Mr. William O'Brien: When the Minister is considering future nuclear testing, will he bear in mind the victims of past nuclear testing on Christmas island and pay them compensation?

Mr. Aitken: As I explained to the House in a debate on Friday a week or two ago, there is no evidence to suggest that those who took part in the tests are suffering from a higher incidence of cancer or any other disease than a representative section of the population.

Type 23 Frigates

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to order a further batch of type 23 frigates later in 1994.

Mr. Aitken: It is our intention to invite tenders for the next batch of type 23 frigates in the coming year.

Mr. Garnier: I understand that HMS Northumberland and HMS Richmond will join the fleet in the next year. That is good news for our procurement industry, but will my hon. Friend confirm that our defence needs on the sea include the submarine fleet and the amphibious fleet and that any advances in the frigate fleet should go hand in hand with procurement across the front line in the Navy?

Mr. Aitken: I agree with my hon. Friend. He and the naval and shipbuilding establishment will be pleased by our announcement under "Front Line First" that invitations to tender will be issued shortly for the LPD replacements, Fearless and Intrepid. We also announced an invitation to tender for batch 2 Trafalgars and an important order worth more than £250 million for seven new mine hunters. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see that, in naval matters, we are putting the front line first.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers at Swan Hunter who have co-operated so fully in completing the three remaining type 23 frigates? Will he also give the House an assurance this afternoon that he will do all in his power to ensure that competitive facilities remain in Britain to build future type 23 frigates? Does he further understand that anything less than full support would be seen as a gross betrayal to the workers' loyalty on Tyneside?

Mr. Aitken: I am very glad, once again, to pay tribute to the work force at Swan Hunter who, under difficult circumstances, have responded with work of outstanding quality and have shown outstanding loyalty, particularly in completing the type 23 frigates. I said that to Mr. Eddie Darke, the convener of the trade unions up there, and I am glad to make it known to the House. On future facilities, we can rest assured that whatever changes there may be in the shipbuilding industry, it is vital that the facilities to build large ships are retained somewhere in Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the conclusion that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development drew from its perspicacious study of the British economy that the route to higher output, lower unemployment and lower inflation is through sound public finances and deregulation, not placing additional burdens and red tape on business, as advocated by the Opposition parties?

The Prime Minister: I certainly recommend the OECD report to the House for what it says on both the economy and the health service. I hope that Opposition Members will take time to read it—I know that they have been preoccupied, but it is a good read. The point about the OECD report is that it recognises that the policies that the Government have pursued have helped to transform our economic prospects, which are better now than I can remember for many years—we intend to keep them that way.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this country we still exempt far too many goods and services from value added tax?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady should read all that my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday before selectively misquoting what he said. I shall remind the right hon. Lady what my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who is chatting on the front Bench. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
It is utterly pathetic to come out with constituency letters in which I merely state my long-stated and well-known view that if we were starting again we might have a lower rate of VAT and fewer exemptions. As he knows, that is not policy now".— [Official Report, 18 July 1994; Vol.247, c.59.]

Mrs. Beckett: But the Prime Minister is doing it again —he is running away from the question. I am asking him whether he agrees with the Chancellor that too few goods and services are subject to VAT. Surely he knows the answer to that. Most people in this country believe that too much is already subject to VAT and they want to know whether the Government are, as it now appears, looking for


an opportunity to put VAT on fares, books or children's clothes. It seems that the Government want to do that. Will the Prime Minister now admit it?

The Prime Minister: Besides listening to what I said a moment ago, the right hon. Lady might care to look at what I said in the House on 14 June, 17 May and 25 January this year, and on 19 October, 6 May, 23 March and 18 March last year. If she is concerned about extra value added tax, perhaps she will tell me whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who has said in relation to VAT on private schools and private medical care:
That is something specifically being looked at".

Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Prime Minister realises that the Chancellor has yet again let the cat out of the bag, by giving an indication that the Government want to put VAT on fares, children's clothes and books. The Prime Minister was willing enough to deny his intentions on VAT before the election, when he was seeking votes, so why is he not prepared to come clean now? Does not the Tory party have a party addiction to VAT; and is not that addiction damaging the budget of every British family?

The Prime Minister: So much for a clear denial of extending VAT to private medical health care—we can draw our own conclusions from that.
As for our policy, I refer the right hon. Lady again to what my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) knows—he is raising this scare again—this is not our policy now and we are not starting again. I see no likelihood of extending VAT. I look forward to a clear denial of what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said the other day about his plans to put VAT on private education.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: During his very busy day, will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and where manufacturing industry has a very meaningful presence? Will he also accept an invitation to sample the culinary expertise of my constituent, Mrs. Annie May of Sutton, which is near Macclesfield, who won the Good Housekeeping recipe competition and gave her £10,000 first prize to Save the Children Fund? Is not that an example of the success of private enterprise and social concern and involvement?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's—[Interruption] I know it is the end of term: relax. My hon. Friend's invitation is irresistible. On a date that I cannot yet give him, I shall be happy to accept it.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, unemployment is falling and has been falling for quite a long time—almost since the shadow Chancellor predicted that it would go up month after month.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister list what steps Britain is taking to assist in Rwanda and what further steps he proposes to relieve suffering and save lives from the terrible catastrophe taking place today on Rwanda's borders?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, we have already provided air lifts to help with the food required in Rwanda. They are likely to continue. We are liaising with our partners on what may be done.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has decided not to take the opportunity to make a formal statement on the important choice of Mr. Santer as president of the European Commission? Also, why does he not explain why he proposes the appointment of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) as a Commissioner —an appointment which will give much pleasure to all members of the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: Upon the latter point, no formal decision has been made. When I have a decision to announce I will announce it.
As for a statement, none was necessary. If any hon. Member thought that it was necessary, but not forthcoming, he would no doubt have tabled a private notice question.

Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister concede that the 1988 changes in the television concessionary licence scheme have proved to be very unfair—even more than they were previously—and that now that it has been determined that the Government will continue the television licence, will he not now return to 1988 and install some fairness into the system, for all pensioners?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that returning to 1988 is an easy proposition, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Industrial Relations

Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the change in industrial relations in the United Kingdom since the 1970s.

The Prime Minister: The strike statistics speak for themselves. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began. Legislation to establish a fair framework for industrial relations has been a key element in attracting inward investment and creating jobs.

Mr. Bates: As 2 million passengers brace themselves for another day of disruption on our railways, caused by the inflation-busting pay demand of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, can my right hon. Friend confirm that some 75,000 members of the RMT pay their political levy to the Labour party and have been eligible to vote in the Labour party's leadership elections?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that, but 75,000 is an awful lot of potential votes. Perhaps we will get a clear condemnation of the strike now that the ballot has closed.

Engagements

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: The next Prime Minister's Question Time is in exactly 13 weeks time. That is three whole months.


What does the Prime Minister think should be done to respond to the representations of Members of Parliament in the meantime? What avenues are supposed to be available to us?

The Prime Minister: The same avenues that have been available to every Government since 1945, including those available to Members of Parliament under previous Labour Governments.

Mr. Paice: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of pressure from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the German Government have withdrawn their totally unwarranted threat to ban British beef? Will he congratulate the European Commission on using sound scientific evidence as the basis for decision making and encourage it to do likewise with future scientific matters?

The Prime Minister: I should certainly be happy to do that and am happy on this occasion to offer my congratulations on the way in which the matter has been handled in Europe. I think that it has been handled very well. The Chief Medical Officer has repeatedly made it clear throughout the saga that British beef can safely be eaten by anyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital. I am delighted that Germany has confirmed that unilateral measures will not now enter into force. I think that that shows that the whole of the Community, including Germany, now accepts that British beef is safe.

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Simpson: Does the Prime Minister accept that the £500,000 retirement hand-out paid by Severn Trent Water to its former chairman will go down as the most expensive disconnection in the history of the water industry? Will he explain why, at the end of the 12th wettest winter since 1727, and facing a 67 per cent. increase in their bills to pay for a 60 per cent. increase in profits and a 30 per cent. increase in the top wage increases of management, the public cannot water their own blooming gardens? Does not that amount to one privatisation cock-up too far?

The Prime Minister: On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I have said before, I would

expect the shareholders and the regulator to question carefully any salary or payment that proved to be excessive. As for the general question of water privatisation, I think that even the hon. Gentleman will concede that, after years of under investment, there is now a substantial investment to deal with environmental matters, of precisely the sort that Opposition Members have asked for for years.

Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Fox: How much of the fall in Britain's unemployment and the rise in Britain's competitiveness does my right hon. Friend attribute to the Government's supply side reforms, especially labour law reform? Does he think that there is any case for dismantling our labour law reforms and trade union reforms, as suggested by Labour leadership candidates?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult to quantify precisely how much, but I have no doubt that they have had a significant effect. Equally, there is no doubt that a peaceful workplace is a prosperous one. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that, unlike Opposition Members, I have no plans to sweep the board clean and start again.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Canavan: On the question of VAT which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), may I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straight answer to a straight question: will he name one thing, just one thing, on which he will never ever impose VAT?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at what I have said in the past when I have made it perfectly clear that I can see no circumstances ever when food would be subject to VAT, and I repeatedly set out the answers to the other points, on the many occasions that I quoted for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read them.

Forestry Review

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Forestry.
In March last year, I informed the House that, along with fellow Forestry Ministers, I had asked officials to review the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands; and to make proposals for changes that would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to our other economic and environment policies. My right hon. Friends and I are grateful to the members of the forestry review group for their work and to the thousands of individuals and organisations who made informed and cogent submissions to the group. I also put on record our gratitude to the commission's staff, who have been subject to a period of inevitable uncertainty during the review but who have continued to make a valuable contribution.
It is clear that the present general approach of multi-purpose forestry is widely supported. That approach, which was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the follow-up to the Earth summit in Rio, places emphasis not just on wood production but on encouraging the use of our forests for amenity and environmental benefits. The review looked closely at the way in which this policy is implemented and identified a number of modifications to the commission's woodland management which could further enhance the delivery of multiple objectives. The proposals that I am announcing today will assist in that by making clearer connections in the commission's management system between the objectives, the resources used and the output.
Our review has considered many options for the ownership and management of the Forestry Commission's woodlands. Our analysis has taken into account the many unique features of the forestry industry such as the varied commercial, recreational and environmental interests and the long lead time required before commercial timber can be harvested. Our conclusion is that, at this stage of their development, the Forestry Commission woodlands should remain in the public sector.
Nevertheless, there is considerable scope for improvement. The work of Forest Enterprise, the forest management arm of the commission, should be put on a more businesslike footing and a stronger connection should be established between the resources used and outputs achieved in all its commercial, recreational and environmental activities. We therefore propose that it should be replaced by a new trading body, established as a next steps agency. That trading body will still be part of the Forestry Commission, but it will deal at arm's length with the other parts of the commission. A chief executive will be appointed by open competition.
The remit of the new body will be clearly specified in its framework document and it will work within clear priorities agreed by the Forestry Commissioners and forestry Ministers. Demanding but deliverable performance measures will be set. There will be improved accounting and costing arrangements, helping to ensure that the costs and benefits of commission programmes are better measured. Ministers will be able to judge more

closely and more clearly the value of specific proposals. In this way we can ensure that the taxpayer obtains better value for money in terms of timber, amenity and environmental benefits.
The review also looked at incentives for forestry. Through grants, the Forestry Commission supports new planting by the private forestry sector, but, under the existing arrangements, new private sector planting of productive conifer forests has declined. We shall take action to increase it. We shall introduce a flat-rate grant for conifer new planting of £700 per hectare and increase the better land supplement for conifers from £400 per hectare to £600.
Those increased grant levels will give a major boost to conifer planting, which is so important for the new wood processing investors, including those who have been and will be attracted to Britain and who provide many new jobs and wider economic benefits, particularly in rural areas. This conifer planting will, of course, be subject to the environmental safeguards which now operate to protect valuable habitats.
For broadleaf new planting, there will be a grant of £1,350 per hectare for woodlands under 10 hectares and £1,050 per hectare for woodlands of 10 hectares or more. To improve, the potential timber quality of those broadleaf-planted areas, we shall require a higher stocking density in order to qualify for the full rate of grant, though there will be exceptions for small woodlands and the planting of native species.
In existing woodlands, we have decided that the level of restocking grant should be reduced to £325 per hectare for conifers and £525 per hectare for broadleaf trees, but the restocking grant will be payable on completion of planting rather than phased over three instalments. Assistance will be introduced for short rotation coppice on set-aside land, although assistance on non-set-aside land will be reduced.
Further details of the new grant arrangements will be available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Library. I have asked the Forestry Commission to close its existing schemes to new applications at 3.30 pm this afternoon and to reopen the woodland grant scheme in September in time for the new planting season.
The new arrangements are being discussed with the European Commission and are subject to its approval, but I have no doubt that this sensible package of incentive measures will be a boost to the planting of more trees. It will bring in some £4 million of new resources—an increase of more than 10 per cent. in the incentives available to the private sector.
It will come as no surprise to the House that the review confirmed that millions of people enjoy access to our forests and that there is a widespread desire for the enjoyment of our forests to be protected, encouraged and enhanced. In response to that, the Government will take a number of measures to strengthen the arrangements which are available to protect existing public access when the commission sells forests as part of its disposal programme.
Procedures for the selection of forests for sale will be more rigorous; consultation periods will be lengthened and we shall encourage local authorities to consider carefully the need to make access agreements when offered. We shall also make it possible for the Forestry Commission to meet legal costs incurred by local authorities in making access agreements.
The Government will take measures to increase opportunities for public access to forests in those areas


where demand is greatest. We shall provide almost £1 million per annum to allow the Forestry Commission to offer to buy out leasehold interests in those of its leased woodlands, particularly those close to centres of population, where the present lease restricts public access. The special management grant already supports schemes to improve public access to private forests.
We shall also be introducing a new woodland improvement grant to enhance the quality of our forests, both environmentally and for the benefit of the visiting public. A similar sum will also be allocated annually towards the development of the national forest, the central Scotland woodlands and the various community forests to which we made a commitment in our manifesto.
We shall publish shortly a document outlining our proposals in more detail which will offer interested parties the opportunity to comment upon them.
Taken together, the Government's proposals are a comprehensive and imaginative package. They will assist the Forestry Commission and its staff by providing clearer objectives and new challenges and by creating a stable framework for its operations; they will assist the private forestry sector by providing better targeted grants., they will assist wood processors by encouraging increased wood production from our forests; and, finally, they will provide the public with improved opportunities to enjoy the great forests that are such an important national amenity. Together they will increase the benefit to the country of forestry, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: Today's statement, delayed and postponed as it has been, represents a humiliating climbdown by the Government as they retreat from their clear and clearly declared ambition to privatise the forests of Britain. In that respect, it is most welcome.
The Government deliberately set out to sell off the country's oldest publicly owned industry in the quick-fix, bargain-basement way that they have made their speciality. However, in this case they came up against a brick wall of public hostility and they have now made not so much a U-turn as an ideological Catherine wheel in policy.
The statement does not represent a conversion, still less a blinding realisation of the folly of privatising an industry taken into public ownership 75 years ago by a Conservative Government. It is simply an act of political cravenness as ideology finally hits reality.
Privatisation would have devastated the land market in Britain as the country's largest landowner divested millions of acres. It would have meant selling a priceless asset of land and trees, nurtured over generations, for a fraction of its real value. It would have undermined and destabilised the long-term supply of timber to a vital national wood processing industry and it would have placed in jeopardy a long-term investment that has increased production sixfold since 1950 and is just about to produce a profit for the taxpayer.
Privatisation would have placed in doubt the protection of the rural environment and threatened very fragile rural economies. Undoubtedly, it would have closed off public access to millions of acres of the nation's land.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order to reply to a statement that has not been given?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not appear to be questioning the

statement; he seems to be making his own as though something hypothetical might have taken place. I am not sure what he is questioning. Does he have the Secretary of State's statement?

Mr. Robertson: I welcome your curiosity, Madam Speaker, but I remind you and the House that, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, last year he asked officials to review the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands. The Government have spent £866,000 of your and my money, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. In that case, the hon. Gentleman might question the Secretary of State about it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting to note the defensiveness of Conservative Back Benchers over the key option that Ministers were clearly considering from day one and, perhaps, the reason why they have found it so difficult to defend it today.
It is small wonder that, having established all these arguments—which, Madam Speaker, we pointed out right from the beginning—even this fixated Government, as they have twisted and weaved and prevaricated towards today's statement, could not find a way of peddling full privatisation. Surely the Government are aware of how sad we should all be at the damage that has been done in the industry because of the long-drawn-out uncertainty about Government plans, which has seriously and needlessly affected investment and confidence.
May I ask the Secretary of State—[Hon. Members: "Hooray."] Clearly the juvenile tendency on the Government Benches comes out even more clearly towards the end of the Session. Why is it that, as the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement today, there is still no consultative document? After more than a year of deliberation, a statement to the House and the expenditure of £866,000 of taxpayers' money, there is still no consultative document. When will it be published, and how long will the consultation period be?
Is the Secretary of State aware that he will have a hard job convincing us that today's forestry halfway house is not just a devious staging post to eventual privatisation —a next steps agency whose next step will be to establish Forestry plc? Have Ministers still not learned the lessons of meddling and tampering with an industry that was rightly and logically placed in full public ownership in the national interest? Is not this obsessive drive towards commercialism undermining the long-term nature of the planning that is so critical to the forestry and timber industries? Will Ministers continue to demand further land sales, given that any new sales will eat into the core planting land of the Forestry Commission?
What does the Secretary of State intend to do about access agreements for sold-off land, which have been such a dismal failure in all previous land sales? What does his statement mean in terms of making access agreements bite, and last beyond the first sale? Do the Government really care about the 50 million visitors who use, enjoy and value forestry land each year, or will they be merely casualties, locked out of their own countryside in the drive to make short-term profits?
Other European countries such as Germany, Norway and Sweden regard common access to the countryside as a


right. The only rights that the Government champion are those of the landed gentry. Cannot the Government get it into their head that forestry is not a short-term profit industry but an industry which, by its very nature, requires long-term investment and careful management of resources?
What the country needs is a multi-purpose forestry strategy—based, of course, on sound financial objectives, but also on long-term environmental protection, conservation, jobs and public access to woodlands. Above all, after 75 years of the Forestry Commission's fine work in utilising and protecting a unique national resource, Britain needs a national forestry policy that is based not on the interests of quick-buck tree choppers and land salesmen but on a genuine British national interest.

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for the warm welcome that he has given to the Government's proposals. The kindest thing that can be said about his response is that he must have written it before he heard my statement. The difference between us is that our conclusion about the future ownership of the forestry is based on reason and common sense, whereas his attitude is clearly driven by pure, undiluted dogma.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no consultative document. I am publishing more details of the grant today, which will be available in the Library; the consultation document itself should be available in two or three weeks, and will allow a consultation period of about three months.
As for commercialism undermining the future of the industry, the hon. Gentleman has got it categorically wrong. He seems to forget that the Forestry Commission was not taken into public ownership—as he put it—75 years ago, but was established by a Government to create a new commercial strength for this country in the growth of trees. If we lose sight of the important commercial aspects of forestry, the whole industry will be doomed. What we propose will lead to more planting, better cash flow and management and more benefits from the forestry industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about access agreements. There will be a classification of woods before disposal; there will be a strong presumption against the sale of those with a higher level of access. Public rights of way, where they do not currently exist, will be included in access agreement arrangements, and local authorities will be encouraged to respond positively to the idea of entering into such agreements.
Their legal costs will be paid by the Forestry Commission; target times will be included for the completion of agreements; the consultation period will be extended from two to three months; and the Forestry Commission has prepared model access agreements which it will offer to local authorities. I am confident that, in those and a number of other ways, access agreements will be entered into more successfully. As for an access agreement lasting beyond the first sale, when a local authority is involved in such an agreement at the initial sale, that agreement will continue for subsequent sales.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman called for a multi-purpose forestry strategy. That is precisely what we set out in the document. The Government's multi-purpose forestry policy remains unchanged; we are simply ensuring that it

will be delivered more effectively and efficiently for the benefit of taxpayers while recognising the commercial, environmental and recreational interests of all those who seek to use and enjoy our forests.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the announcement of incentives to encourage tree planting will be very popular and, we hope, will increase the number of trees planted?
Although his announcement that the estate of the Forestry Commission will stay in public hands will undoubtedly be welcomed by the huge majority of people, does he accept that it is a disappointment to a small minority of us because we believe that it would have been possible to dispose of the forestry estate from public hands while maintaining existing environmental advantages and public access?
Finally, how much money does my right hon. Friend reckon could have been raised had he taken the alternative decision to privatise the Forestry Commission's estate?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome for incentives for planting and for his acknowledgement that the announcement that Forestry Commission woodlands are to stay in public ownership will be widely welcomed. However, I acknowledge that he and a number of colleagues would have preferred them to be sold. I agree that there is no intrinsic reason for it and it does on the surface seem rather odd that any Government should be involved in the extensive ownership and planting of trees, but the fact is that we have to deal with the existing situation. Having reviewed the position, the Government concluded that the present structure and characteristics of the forest estate do not lend themselves easily to the privatisation process, and that access, environmental and recreational considerations argue in favour of the conclusion that I have reached.
My right hon. Friend asked what valuation might have been placed on the woodlands had they been sold. It is a hypothetical question, but it might have been in the region of £700 million or £800 million, and that is for assets valued in the Forestry Commission's accounts at around double that figure.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Secretary of State accept that we at least welcome the Damascene conversion or U-turn by the Government? We hope only that it will be permanent and that there will be no permanent indecision about the long-term prospects for the Forestry Commission. On that score, will he tell us whether the £4 million of what we understand to be new money will include the sum allocated for the woodlands improvement grant, which we regard as extremely important in helping to ensure that woodlands are open to a wider cross-section of the public for their recreation and enjoyment?
The public will judge the proposals on their results. Madam Speaker, if you go down to the woods today, you will find a huge number of our fellow citizens enjoying the woodlands under the control of the Forestry Commission. If, in terms of the environment, the natural habitat, jobs, employment, economics and public access, there can be a permanent solution to the Forestry Commission's indecision and difficulties of the past few months, it will be to the benefit of all our fellow citizens.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about a Damascene conversion, but the truth is that there has been no such thing. The Government have worked their way towards this conclusion, reviewing the options without prior commitment and without the dogmatic prejudice found so easily in the Labour party. There has been no U-turn; nor are we entering a period of permanent indecision.
On the contrary, now that we have resolved the issues and now that a statement has been made that covers the whole range of interests in the forestry industry, we can now look forward to a period of stability and restored confidence in the planting and processing sectors, which are so vital to future employment in rural areas where we can look forward to the continuing development of employment opportunities. Indeed, only today, I was pleased to see in the Financial Times the announcement of a £40 million hardboard factory to be built in south Wales with the creation of 200 jobs. That is the kind of benefit to which we can now look forward as a result of the stability that I have highlighted.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the £4 million of additional resources coming into the system. Some of the increased grant will be derived from reductions in other grants, which I also mentioned in my statement.
However, the £4 million coming in will be directed towards the buying out of leases in those woodland areas which the Forestry Commission leases, mainly in England. Some £2.6 million will go towards increased planting in the conifer section, which is spread around the United Kingdom, although the majority is in Scotland. The remaining £500,000 of the £4 million will go to the short rotational coppice-planting scheme in set-aside land.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the tax changes which we introduced in 1988 and the environmental concerns, some justified, some not so justified, have in recent years robbed the forestry industry of its momentum. May I congratulate him on showing the difference between conifers and hard wood in forestry? Although we need hardwoods for timber production to some extent and for environmental purposes, conifers will drive along forestry in this country. While I welcome the measures that he has introduced, will he keep the matter continually under review to ensure that we get this vital industry on the road again?

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend, whose interest and knowledge of these matters is extensive. I can confirm that, of course, these matters are continually kept under review. I hope that the switch of emphasis which we have announced today and the extra resources will lead to substantial increases in planting.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there has been a flatness in planting in recent years. Indeed, the target of 33,000 hectares has become increasingly meaningless unless the restocking component is taken into account. It is clearly a matter that we shall have to consider further. Our objective is to raise planting levels across the board, but especially in the conifer section.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the supposed advantages of the trading body being, to quote the statement, "at arm's length" from the commission?

Mr. Lang: The objective of setting up the trading body on a next steps agency basis is to create a commercial

atmosphere and the kind of commercial disciplines which will lead to greater identification of objectives, inputs and outputs achieved. That is a matter of recognising the cost and benefit of the commercial, recreational and environmental components. Those are the matters to which some of the specific grants that I have announced today —there are four new grants in the package that I have announced today—are directed.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the boundaries of my constituency lies the royal forest of Dean? I am quite confident that the majority of citizens in the forest of Dean will warmly welcome, as I do, today's statement in which the Government recognise the true value of the forestry estate, not only for producing wood, but for recreation and preserving the environment.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local people in the forest of Dean very much cherish their freedom to roam at will throughout the forest? That uniqueness was recognised in 1981, when the forest was set aside from other forest woodland from which it was able to sell off standing timber. Nevertheless, the residents around Dymock woods and Chestnut woods will also welcome the announcement today. My right hon. Friend—

Madam Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to put questions and I have other business to safeguard. This is not the time for making statements.

Mr. Marland: rose—

Madam Speaker: Just a moment. If the hon. Gentleman has one direct question to put to the Secretary of State, I shall allow him to do so.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some frustration over enterprises undertaken by Forest Enterprise to raise money in the forest of Dean because it was not possible for Forest Enterprise to reinvest money which was raised locally? Will he say whether, in future, money raised locally will be spent locally?

Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. I acknowledge the close interest and authority that he brings to his repeated references to the matter in his discussions with me. I am happy to reassure him about the future of the forest of Dean and also of the woodlands that he mentioned. Indeed, I think that the forest of Dean was included not only in the Forestry Act 1981, but in the Forestry Act 1967 and the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923.
On the question of rewarding the activities of those involved in managing the woods and forests that my hon. Friend mentioned, one of the benefits of the increased transparency and clarification of the objectives, inputs and outputs which will be derived from the establishment of a next steps agency is that it will be possible to create incentives, to reward good performance and to focus resources in a way that gets the best benefit for the type of objectives that my hon. Friend identified.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: First, will the Secretary of State give special attention to the need to restore the balance between management grants and planting grants so that existing woodlands can be enhanced and the gap between farming and forestry can be bridged? Secondly, will he give a guarantee that the disposals programme will not continue after the end of the century?

Mr. Lang: The disposals programme will continue; it is part of a rationalisation process. It is inevitable that the Forestry Commission, which has more than 1 million hectares under its ownership and control, should wish both to dispose of and to acquire small parcels of land with a view to rationalising and more efficiently managing its estate. The disposals programme will continue.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship between planting grants and management grants. I hope that he welcomes the grants that I have announced today, including the woodland improvement grant, which is one of the new grants, and the livestock exclusion premium grant, and the new pilot schemes to stimulate planting in priority target areas. That and the interrelationship between farming and forestry have been carefully considered and are reflected in the decisions I have announced today.

Mr. Barry Field: The Select Committee on the Environment, when preparing its report on forestry, expressed concern about the opportunity for set-aside money to be put into forestry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's announcement today will be widely welcomed by farmers and by the general public who see sterile land being used for growing trees. That will be very welcome. Can my right hon. Friend say a word about what he expects to happen to the widely respected Forestry Commission education unit, which does so much to spread knowledge among our schoolchildren?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. On the education unit, I am asking the director-general to look at all aspects of the work carried out by the Forestry Authority with a view to improving the performance and efficiency of the organisation. That is not a component of my statement today which is focused primarily on Forest Enterprise, on grants and on improving access. I have no doubt that the same disciplined approach will be brought to bear on the Forestry Authority.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Secretary of State represents, as I do, a constituency that is dependent on forestry as the key industry, he will appreciate that much of my concern is about employment, both direct and indirect. In that context, will he clarify what he means by the phrase "at this stage" when he refers in his statement to Forestry Commission woodland staying in the public sector? The phrase seems to suggest that there will be future reviews and that this is a two-step rather than a one-step move towards privatisation.
Will the Forestry Commission headquarters remain in Edinburgh, given that 64 per cent. of Forestry Commission land is in Scotland? Who will appoint the chief executive of the next steps agency? Will the Secretary of State accept that rights of way are not the same as access to forestry? If there are to be serious negotiations about access, our local authorities must have adequate funding to ensure that access is available to the public.

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Lady that this is not a two-stage review; it is a one-stage review. The review has been extensive and comprehensive, and I hope that it will create an atmosphere of stability and confidence during which all aspects of the forestry industry will be able to plan for the long term.
I have no plans to contemplate the removal of the Forestry Commission headquarters from Edinburgh where they are effectively based. The chief executive of the next

steps agency will be recruited by open competition, and ultimately the decision will be for Ministers, after careful scrutiny and assessment of all the applicants.
I share the hon. Lady's emphasis on the importance of maintaining employment in rural areas. I believe that my statement will lead to a considerable rise of confidence in the future of employment.

Mr. David Lidington: Will there still be an important place in the new arrangements for wildlife conservation and for education, which have been great successes of Forest Enterprise in places such as Wendover woods in my constituency, which are on the edge of large centres of population?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend on that; the importance of environmental matters is central to multi-purpose forestry. We have acknowledged that carefully in the conclusions which we have reached and which we have announced today.
There are some 400 sites of special scientific interest in Forestry Commission land covering some 60,000 hectares, and I anticipate that the various heritage and countryside bodies in all of the countries in the United Kingdom will be fully involved in work with the Forestry Commission and with the private sector to ensure that their interests are protected.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: If the Government insist on a disposal programme, will the Secretary of State accept that the most effective way to ensure public access is for the local communities—where they express an interest to take over a woodland—to be given first preference or option on any sale? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to enhance the role of community woodlands? What will he do about the potential for conflict of interest for employees of the Forestry Commission, or of any other public agency, when it comes to the disposal of woodlands? I am thinking about a case in my constituency about which I have written to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Lang: I am aware of the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to which he referred, and I am happy to assure him that I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for forestry matters to furnish me with a full report on what is going on in that case.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about access and the importance of community woodlands. We have established a new pilot targeting scheme to focus resources and help on community woodlands in central Scotland and on the national forest in England. The community woodland supplement scheme will remain in force with a grant of £950 per hectare. It is a successful and popular scheme, and there have been some 500 applications, for it.

Mr. George Kynoch: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his statement today will be well received in my constituency, where there is a high level of afforestation. The reference to the 10 per cent. increase in the incentive for planning and my right hon. Friend's comments on access will be particularly welcomed. Will he confirm that future access by the local community to community woodlands such as Pannanich in Ballater and Dunnottar woods in Stonehaven will be secured?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that general assurance, and I am grateful to him for his


welcome for the announcement, which will benefit forest areas in his constituency and elsewhere. We have an incentives package to encourage access, and we have a number of proposals to strengthen the local authority involvement in access agreements. The community woodland supplement, the special management grants and the new woodland improvement grant will all help to improve access so that the public may enjoy our forests.

Mr. William Ross: May I be the first from this side of the House to offer the general welcome which I believe the statement richly deserves? It was absolutely necessary that the statement came at this time to give those people who wish to plant advance notice of what is available.
May I also welcome the better incentives for commercial conifer plantings, as opposed to sums which up to now had gone to what were largely amenity plantings of broadleaf woodlands? What is the right hon. Gentleman's target area for forests in the United Kingdom? Will he also give an assurance that he will take into account the environmental factors which affect the headwaters of many rivers regarding acidification, and also places such as the Flo country?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask one question each.

Mr. Lang: It is a pity, Madam Speaker, as I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I am grateful for that, and in particular for his welcome for the conifer incentive. I have forgotten the other question about which he asked me.
Acidification is an environmental consideration to which attention must be given, and not just by the Forestry Commission. Attention will continue to be given to it.

Mr. David Nicholson: My constituents and others who value the amenities of Exmoor, the Quantocks and the Blackdowns will greatly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about stability and access to forests and woodlands. They will also welcome the thrust of his statement about improving timber production and products in the United Kingdom.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who like and respect the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) feel that his response to the statement was well below par?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for what I said.

Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate the Secretary of State on explaining to the House that there is often a conflict between privatisation and the public interest. May I invite him to explain it to some of his colleagues in other areas of the Government? May I say how welcome the statement will be to my constituents in the Cannock Chase area, which serves a large neighbouring conurbation? Beyond the need to deliver some organisational change to colleagues who wanted privatisation, why was it necessary to disturb Forest Enterprise, which is known to be working well, and turn it into a next steps agency, which will make it more commercial and less accountable?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the success of Forest Enterprise—an initiative

that has moved things substantially in the right direction. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Forestry Commission for initiating that development. We propose to build on that success and to create the greater transparency of cost and benefit that we would get from a next steps agency, which was being diffused under the umbrella of multi-purpose forestry. We are not abandoning that policy attitude, but within the concept of multi-purpose forestry it is important to identify and measure the relative costs and benefits of its different components.

Mr. Phil Gallie: May I add my welcome for the encouragement that my right hon. Friend is giving, in hard cash terms, to conifer planting? Does he agree that the Scottish climate is ideally suited to rapid growth? Does he acknowledge that the statement is good for the timber industry as it will secure indigenous supplies? Does he also acknowledge that, in the long term, the deal is good for the economy as it will reduce import costs?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful for his welcome. Indeed, it has come to my notice that conifer trees grow about three times faster in some parts of western Scotland than they do in Scandinavia and that they are of better quality for the purposes of our wood processors.

Mr. George Foulkes: I welcome the central point of the Secretary of State's statement about keeping the forest in public ownership, and I pay tribute to the part played by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in achieving that.
Since the Secretary of State and I share representation of the Galloway forest, which is one of the largest in Scotland, can he assure me that the jobs and conditions of service of those people who work so hard on behalf of Forest Enterprise and the commission, at Straiton in my constituency and throughout the forest, will be safeguarded when the next steps agency is set up?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and I join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for forestry matters for his extremely wise and sensible advice as we developed the proposal.
On the future of employment in the forestry industry, with more and more trees reaching maturity, as we are approaching harvesting time, and with the increased planting activities that I envisage as a result of the better focused and increased grants, employment is likely to rise rather than fall.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by those of us in north Worcestershire who have a close attachment to the magnificent woodlands after which my constituency is named? He mentioned increased grants for broadleaf planting in his statement, but said that the grants would be subject to certain densities. Is there a case for, and will he consider, eliminating that condition for broadleaf grants in areas of outstanding natural beauty where high densities may not be appropriate?

Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. While we are seeking higher densities of about 2,250 trees per hectare for broadleaf grants, a density of 1,100 trees per hectare may be acceptable for new native


woodlands in appropriate sites, or for small-scale planting of broadleaf trees where there is little potential for timber production—normally, as discrete woodlands of less than three hectares, or as components of predominantly coniferous planting schemes. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Secretary of State give us a guarantee that, as a result of his announcement, the public will not lose access rights to any more forests in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the new access agreements that we have introduced today, and the rich diversity of measures that we are taking to encourage increased access to Forestry Commission and private sector woodland, will lead to considerably improved opportunities for access. I cannot, of course, give the hon. Gentleman any absolute and categorical guarantees, because the ultimate decisions are largely for the purchasers and for local authorities. Emphasising the role of local authorities and making their task so much easier will lead to many more productive access agreements being reached.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend instanced the millions of people who enjoy our woodlands. I wonder whether he has yet had time to consider how hundreds of thousands of those same people might become investors in forestry if the Treasury could be persuaded to put the rules affecting such investment on an equal footing with investment in other productive industries.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and I note his suggestion, which is essentially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, much more planting is taking place at the hands of the private sector than at the hands of the Forestry Commission, and hon. Members will recognise the good sense of that.

Mr. Eric Clarke: May I ask a question that I have asked Ministers before about research establishments, particularly the one in my constituency in the Bush estate? The Secretary of State omitted to mention research establishments in his statement, which I support, with qualification. What is the future for research establishments? Must they wait on the public efficiency drive on all establishments which has been proposed by the Government?

Mr. Lang: I did not mention research establishments in my statement because it was not concerned with that aspect of the Forestry Commission, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Secretary of State do anything to safeguard consumers' interests in relation to two particular aspects of his statement? First, how will we know whether the freedom to roam is safeguarded and promoted? Secondly, with regard to forestry grants, the Secretary of State will know that the previous system was a disaster in terms of speculation. In the present system, planting has been flat. Is there not a case for giving power to an existing or new

body to speak on behalf of the people to guarantee their freedom to roam and that the investment system is working in the public interest?

Mr. Lang: If by consumers the hon. Gentleman means visitors to our forests, we keep a record of the number of visitors to commission forests. At present, there are some 50 million visits a year. It would be relatively straightforward to continue to keep tabs on the progress of numbers. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest the creation of a new body. I have not noticed any shortage of bodies willing to proclaim themselves the spokesman for environmental interests, ramblers, walkers, mountaineers and all those people who take an interest in our forests. They lack no opportunity to make their views heard.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: How incompatible are the access agreements involving private woodland owners with the deeply unpopular trespass provisions in criminal justice legislation? Where an access agreement is signed, will hikers, anglers and others be protected against the liberal employment of those deeply unpopular trespass provisions?

Mr. Lang: The provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are in the Criminal Justice Bill, and they are not essentially a matter for me. They are aimed not at those people who seek simply to enjoy the land, but at those who invade other people's land with objectives that are damaging to the interests of owners and other users of that land. That is a different matter.

Mrs. Ray Michie: May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the Forestry Commission and its staff on their excellent work, particularly in the past 10 to 15 years? Will he tell us, because he has not made it clear, who will give local authorities, if they are to be responsible for access and maintenance of access to forests that are sold into private ownership, the resources to carry out that task?
I am sorry to hear that the disposal programme is continuing. It seems like continuing privatisation by the back door. If it does continue, what will happen to forests such as those around Lochgoilhead in my constituency, which were gifted to the Forestry Commission by the old Glasgow corporation for the enjoyment of the people of Glasgow? I hardly think that the Government have any right to sell off those forests.

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Lady that, even if the present disposal programme continued at its present rate, it would take another 100 years before disposal of the commission's forest woodlands would be complete. A new classification system has been introduced to ensure that forests and woods that are most in demand for access are the least likely to be sold, so I envisage that the problem will largely dissipate as an issue.
Local authorities will be responsible not for carrying out maintenance but for considering whether to ask for an access agreement to be written into a sale. The commission will make it as easy as possible for them to do so by drawing up draft agreements, by allowing longer for consultation, by paying legal fees and by involving heritage bodies, such as Scottish Natural Heritage, in the consideration of such matters.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I press the Secretary of State on that very simple point? The Welsh Select Committee prepared a report last year, from which the Minister will see that numerous local authorities throughout Wales said that they wanted to enter into access agreements but could not afford to do so. Unless this core point is addressed, we are wasting time talking about public access. Who will appoint the chief executive?
Finally, I add my voice to that of others who have welcomed the broad thrust of the statement that forestry should remain in the public sector, but I am concerned about the words in it "at this stage".

Mr. Lang: I have already answered the question about the chief executive.
The main cost that a local authority will bear is the legal cost of drawing up an access agreement. I have indicated that the Forestry Commission will pay those costs.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have not successive Speakers deprecated from the Chair reference to applications for private notice questions? Is it not a little bit much to be told quite clearly by the Prime Minister at Question Time that we did not get a statement on the important issues involved in the decision to appoint the Luxembourg Prime Minister, Mr. Santer, rather than the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Dehaene, because we did not apply for private notice questions. Is this not a rather new doctrine? Supposing I were to put one in tomorrow— would I be lucky?

Madam Speaker: In answer to the last question, I think not. On the first question, it is not for me to interpret what the Prime Minister said. We all need to be clear about that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, as I will, will read the Official Report tomorrow to see whether his interpretation is correct.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am aware of your concern about access to the House for all people, including disabled people. I am also aware of your desire to inquire into any alleged abuse of the House. I just tried to book a small dining room for a party of disabled constituents at the end of November, only to find that no booking is free until next year.
I would not have been concerned about that, if I had not this morning received from a constituent a Team 1000 document, which says that, if one pays £1,000 to the Conservative party, one can dine in the House of Commons on a regular basis. This is a letter from the chairman of the Conservative party, with an accompanying note from the Prime Minister.
Last year, 1,399 bookings were made by Conservative Members and only 167 by Labour Members. During the summer recess, will you please inquire into what is happening, when people can pay £1,000 and buy access to here but my constituents cannot do so?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is telling me that he cannot book a dining room between now and next year. I think that he should refer the matter to the Catering Committee. I will do so myself, but it is also incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to do so.

Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I give you the documentation, which advertises facilities—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman began his point of order by saying that no room was available for him to entertain constituents between now and next year, but that at the same time rooms are being advertised. There is obviously something wrong. I suggest that he refers the entire matter to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, who is responsible, and I shall do so myself. Therefore, there will be a two-pronged effect, and a very effective two-pronged effect at that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On another matter, Madam Speaker, which involves the integrity of the House of Commons. You will recall ruling


last week that the rules of the House would be upheld. Have you seen the list of Members to be appointed to the Privileges Committee? Have you noticed—

Madam Speaker: Order. There is nothing disorderly about that. We shall reach that subject later tonight, and the hon. Gentleman can make his views known then. It is not a matter to be dealt with now. It is on the Order Paper to be dealt with at the appropriate time.

Mr. David Winnick: With reference to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), would it be possible to consider the wider issue and the way in which the House of Commons is increasingly being used purely and simply for commercial purposes? Apart from being used by the Conservative party, the dining rooms are hired by hon. Members on behalf of various commercial organisations —in some cases hon. Members receive money, and in others they do not. Is it not undesirable for dining rooms of the House of Commons—the representative assembly of the British people—to be used sometimes for commercial purposes?

Madam Speaker: I am hoping that the reference that I promised to make to the Chairman of the Catering Committee—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will do likewise—will be looked into. That issue relates to the original point of order.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), Madam Speaker. Without going into specifics, could you give us guidance as to whether there are any circumstances in which it is in order for people to sell tickets for £1,000 or any other price to eat in the Houses of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: I want to see all the information before I am prepared to comment on that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will let my office have that information as soon as possible.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As for doing things properly, when approached by a lobby organisation to book one of the rooms downstairs that we use for afternoon teas and other things, is it in order for an hon. Member like me to do so on behalf of the trade unions and the workers at Rosyth? That is just what I have done within the past two weeks, and it seems to be a proper use of lobbying and Parliament.
One should be careful before one makes charges against individual Conservative Members who believe that they are carrying out their parliamentary duties.

Madam Speaker: We cannot hold an inquiry on that matter now across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press you on the matter, but can I ask you a direct question? Do you believe that there would be a conflict of interests on the Privileges Committee in the event of the motion being carried? The hon. Member for Shipley—

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not hear anything further from the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to resume his seat. We can discuss that matter later tonight as it is on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman knows precisely our procedures; he may well take action this evening, but it is not for him to take action now, as we have not reached that stage on the Order Paper.

BILLS PRESENTED

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Rev. Martin Smyth, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. James Molyneaux, Dr. Joe Hendron, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. William McCrae, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Roy Beggs, and Mr. Clifford Forsythe, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Northern Ireland, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

CONTROL OF CAR BOOT SALES

Mr. William Cash, supported by Sir Michael Neubert, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. Keith Mans, presented a Bill to regulate the holding of certain occasional sales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

Mr. Alan Keen, supported by Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Cynog Dafis, and Mr. Jon Owen Jones, presented a Bill to prevent the making of false or unsupported environmental claims and similar claims relating to animal welfare in relation to goods or services; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

European Communities (Community Law)

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide for the application of Community law within the United Kingdom to be supervised by Parliament.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the role of Parliament in the implementation and interpretation of European Community law as it applies in the United Kingdom.
By our accession to the treaty of Rome in 1973, we made European Community law superior to our own law. European law consists of the treaties, all the decisions, directives and regulations, and the accumulated judgments of the European Court of Justice, comprising a developed system of law on its own, distinct from the laws of the member states.
When we first joined the EEC, it was left to the national authorities of each member state to decide how to implement a directive. That is still enshrined in article 189 of the treaty, but over the years the ECJ has developed the doctrine of direct effect, which means that a directive is now binding on the member states and on their citizens alike. At the same time, it creates rights which national courts are bound to uphold.
Moreover, the doctrine of the occupied field means that powers once gained by the Community cannot be withdrawn. The ECJ has demonstrated itself to be an interpretative and innovative court. In the context of our system of common law and statute law, we would say that it was a political court. In one ruling, the court accepted that it
must not be defeated by obscurities or contradictions in the text, for the real meaning can be deduced from the context or the spirit of the text".
The leading textbook on EC law, Lasock and Bridge, describes how the court will fill in the gaps in the system and so update the text, acting
not only as a Constitutional Court of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".
In a landmark case in 1978, the court ruled that
a national court which is called upon … to apply provisions of Community Law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provisions of national legislation, even is adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await a prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means.
Recently, there have been a number of judgments in which the ECJ has more confidently asserted this principle, in a way that is wholly alien to our unwritten constitution. Furthermore, the doctrine of direct effect is leading even our own courts to develop the same methods of free and political interpretation, even overturning Acts of our Parliament. Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember the Factortame case in 1990, in which the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was simply disallowed.
Over the past two years, the Government have suffered five defeats on various reinterpretations of the 1978 acquired rights directive—the last of them on the day before the European elections. This is wreaking havoc with

the Government's competitive tendering and contracting out policies, which were previously regarded as perfectly reasonable and legal.
How is it that, although we are told that Parliament cannot bind its successors, we find that legislation passed by a Labour Government as a result of a directive to which they agreed now binds us to a succession of new and ever wider interpretations from which we cannot escape?
Until recently, such controversial decisions affecting policy would not have been touched by judges; the nature of these issues is clearly and obviously political. Typical of the free and loose way in which our laws are developed is what happens under article 119 of the treaty, which establishes the principle of equal pay for men and women. Pay is now widely interpreted to mean pensions, redundancy terms and other things, and goes far beyond the intention of this House when we first joined the Community.
On 3 March this year, in the Equal Opportunities case, our Law Lords effectively struck out aspects of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, on the basis that current differences in employment conditions between part-time and full-time workers are, in their judgment, indirectly discriminatory against women, because more women work part-time. Does this further innovation reflect the fact that one of our Law Lords is a former justice of the European Court?
There is also the continuing scandal of the huge financial settlements on pregnant former service women; it is set to cost the Government the price of a new frigate. What price "Front Line First"? Those who have fought and risked all for their country—and their widows—must wonder who decides such absurd priorities. Surely the politicians, not the judges, must decide.
This Bill does not purport to put a stop to all this, but should not this Parliament at least have a role in the process? The Bill proposes that the obligation to implement EC law should be transferred from our courts, which are making increasingly political judgments automatically, to the High Court of Parliament. That means that, where it is found that UK law is incompatible with EC law, the matter would be referred to the appropriate Secretary of State, who would then lay an Order before us, on which we could deliberate and vote.
That merely puts us on a par with our European Community partners. They all have written constitutions, which defend their national sovereignty. In France the Conseil d'État, and in Germany the Karlsruhe court—the supreme court of Germany—effectively set limits on the penetration of EC law into the system. Our Parliament is our supreme court. We are surely entitled to similar protection, the same as the others. After all, we want to be at the heart of Europe.
Governments have always been ready to reassure the House that such protections are unnecessary or alarmist. In 1975, during the referendum, we were assured:
No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
That has gone by the board. During the passage of the Maastricht Bill, the then Foreign Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), admitting that the ECJ has
traditionally been a centralising institution,
and went on to claim that he saw


clear signs of a change of emphasis, and I believe that that trend will be reinforced by the Maastricht treaty."—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1058–60.]
That is what he said, but has it been borne out by events?
Lord Denning was right when he told us what was happening to our law back in 1974, when he described EC law as
an incoming tide. It flows into estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back.
As the 1996 renegotiation of Maastricht approaches, we are seeing a gradual evolution of Government policy. That needs to amount to a complete reappraisal—and, indeed, a new British consensus on Europe is forming, reflected not least in the sponsors whom I have gathered for the Bill. Only last week, the official Opposition declared themselves in favour of a Europe of nation states and against a federal Europe. Here is an opportunity to give a little legislative expression to these emerging aspirations.
Some may feel that it is gesture politics to introduce a Bill at this stage of the Session, and, of course, the procedure is perhaps just that, but I make no apology for giving the House an opportunity to set down a marker. If we are not prepared to stand up for the supremacy of our Parliament, we can be certain that no one else will bother.
I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House merely to declare their belief in our powers and rights by supporting the Bill, for who else will defend them?

Mr. Derek Enright: May I first start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that we really should have a written constitution. I am glad that he is now on record as saying that it would make life so much easier if we had one. I welcome him and offer him free membership of the society that seeks precisely that.
On directives—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Colchester, North has quite finished—he is prone to mumble, and I have heard him do exactly that in European Standing Committee B—perhaps he might think for one moment about the directive that he originally mentioned. He was absolutely correct. A directive was, and still remains, a directive from the centre, and is fulfilled in the way that individual Governments see fit.
That was one reason why we made such a mess of the directive on knackers' yards, which were running perfectly well for a very long time, yet were ordered by the European Union to ensure that they were set up in a hygienic way. No sooner were Ministers and civil servants down to it than all sorts of regulations were put in place that were absolutely and totally unnecessary. The Commission confirmed that they were totally unnecessary.
Far too often, as with the hon. Member for Colchester, North, directives are over-zealously fulfilled. Therefore, the fault Is in watching out on our own Executive. I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester, North about another genuine difficulty. It is that the Select Committee on European Legislation and Standing Committees A and B do not have the power that they should have properly to examine European legislation.
The hon. Member mentioned the acquired rights directive. I am convinced that we were right to warn the Government about what would happen. I remind the hon.
Gentleman that article 119 is part of the treaty of Rome and was passed long before we decided to join. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), signed up to the treaty of Rome, with which I am in total agreement. The agreement does not give equal pay. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read it, he would see that it gives equal rights, which are crucial for women.
The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, under article 119, the Government have been interfered with more than any other European Government. We have been taken to court more often than any other member country for offending against women's rights, and we have been found guilty every time.
I shall not divide the House. [Interruption.] I would rather see the Bill go its little zig-zag way through the differing groups in the Government. We have the means properly to scrutinise European legislation, and we should do that. I look forward to watching the peregrinations of the hon. Member for Colchester, North as he goes about his business.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Evans, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. John Sykes.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (COMMUNITY LAW)

Mr. Jenkin accordingly presented a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide for the application of Community law within the United Kingdom to be supervised by Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you notice that, in his speech, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) did not attempt in any way to dispute the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): No, I did not notice that, but I have noticed that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the House to be informed of the exact message on the envelope that was placed before the hon. Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a total abuse of the procedures of the House, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He rose to put a point of order, but he knows full well that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member's speech and say that that hon. Member said something which he clearly did not? In opposing the Bill, the hon. Member for Hemwsworth (Mr. Enright) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) had said that he wanted a written constitution. My hon. Friend made no such statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak against a ten-minute Bill and then not to shout "No"? If it is not in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was in order. If he had not been, I would have ruled him out of order. The hon. Gentleman eventually said "No".

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order. The House has important business to consider, and it is time that we got on with it.

Opposition Day

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2ND PART]

Water Industry

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
That this House notes that since water privatisation in England and Wales, there has been a 48 per cent increase in domestic water disconnections, a 67 per cent increase in consumers' bills, a 125 per cent increase in water companies' profits, and a 133 per cent increase in the average pay of water company chairmen; believes that in providing a basic necessity such as water, essential to life and health, the needs of the consumer must come first; regrets that instead of this the privatised companies have put dividend growth and directors' benefits first; expresses alarm at the rise in domestic water charges, especially in areas such as the South West; insists that high standards of drinking water quality and sewage treatment must be achieved, but believes that the cost of this investment should not be placed almost entirely as a burden on current customers; deplores the manner in which the democratically expressed wishes of the Scottish people with regard to water are being overridden by Her Majesty's Government; calls for an immediate ban on domestic water disconnections and on the compulsory introduction of domestic water meters; and insists on the introduction of a tougher regulatory regime for water that puts the public first.
Early this morning, I went to the Library and looked up some of the debates on the Water Bill in 1988 and 1989. What a wonderful picture was painted at that time by the then Secretary of State for the Environment. On Second Reading on 7 December 1988, he said that all the Opposition scare stories about what would happen to water charges were completely unfounded and ridiculous. He said that there would be minor increases only as a result of privatisation, and that the shadow Secretary of State had been wide of the mark when he spoke about water charges doubling or trebling by the end of the century. Those who live in the area of South West Water have already seen their water and sewerage charges double, and we are not yet halfway since that time to the end of the century.
We were told that there would be wonderful access to the world's capital markets for money for investment and to clean up the environment. The world's capital markets are not funding the investment: it is being funded by the water companies' customers. In a remarkable little passage on Third Reading on 4 April 1989, Mr. Ridley said:
The whole country knows that people work more effectively if there is every opportunity for them to better themselves by better performance."—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol.150, c.91.]
He was talking about the people who run the water companies. They have bettered themselves all right, but I doubt that it is better performance that has resulted in the departing chairman of Severn Trent Water getting a golden handshake of £500,000, or the former chief executive of North West Water getting £398,000 last November as a departing handshake. In the north-west region, two out of three bathing beaches are still illegally polluted with sewage. Privatisation has turned out to be a ghastly mistake.

Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend spoke about Second and Third Readings of the Water Bill. I served on the Committee that examined the Bill. When we debated compulsory metering trials throughout the country—one was in my constituency—I said that that would be of no value to privatisation, that it would be costly and would inconvenience many constituents. That is exactly what happened: the meters are no longer in use. That is another example of incompetence, of spending taxpayers' money without thought as to the value. It shows how privatisation has failed the customers.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, is absolutely correct. One of the points that he will have noticed in the motion before the House today is that we want to prohibit the introduction of compulsory metering into people's domestic water supply.
After all, water is not just another commodity that one might buy or sell in a supermarket; water is essential to life and health. Since privatisation, water charges have gone through the roof and many of our beaches remain polluted with sewage, yet company chairmen have awarded themselves massive salary increases while 240 families a week have their water supply disconnected.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has referred on three occasions so far to what he calls dirty beaches. They obviously need to be cleared up. Where will the money come from? If it not raised through the water charges, will it come from taxes and if so, by how much?

Mr. Smith: I shall come to precisely that point in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. It was his Secretary of State who said that the problem would be solved by access to the capital markets—that that would solve everything.
It is small wonder in those circumstances that it was recently said:
Water privatisation is a rip-off, a steal, a plunder, legalised mugging, piracy, licensed theft, a diabolical liberty, a huge scam, a cheat, a snatch, a grab, a swindle".
Those are not the modest and moderate tones of an Opposition spokesperson, but Mr. Joe Rogaly writing in the Financial Times on 12 July.
In rather more measured tones, the National Consumer Council said:
The performance record of many companies and of the water industry as a whole is lamentably poor, with many consumers facing rising prices and poorer services.
Let us look at precisely what has happened since privatisation. Water and sewerage charges have rocketed upwards, the average increase for England and Wales has been 67 per cent. since privatisation. That increase has been worse in some areas—in the north-west it was 75 per cent. and in the south-west it was 108 per cent. It cannot be right that single pensioners in the south-west of Britain are paying more than 9 per cent. of their entire income on water and sewerage charges.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I would have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's concern for the west country if his hon. Friends had not trooped through the Lobby to vote down a Bill that I introduced to bring relief.
The hon. Gentleman is moving inexorably towards saying that the EC directives should be implemented in full, without any negation on the time scale. Will he now

answer the question that he was asked a few moments ago and say whether that is to be funded by increased water charges, by an increase in general taxation or both?

Mr. Smith: As I told the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I shall come to that point in just a moment, but I would take the hon. Gentleman's intervention rather more kindly if the role that he and others played during the passage of the Water Bill had recognised what the Opposition warned time and again would be the adverse consequence of privatisation.
The water companies say that the water charges must rise because of the necessary investment in cleaning up the water supply. That might have been a believable argument had investment actually risen in line with the rise in the price increase, but it has not. Southern Water has had a 43 per cent. price increase but a zero increase in the level of capital investment.

Mr. Arnold: From what base?

Mr. Smith: The increases took place from 1989–90 to 1992–93, which are the latest available figures.
Welsh Water has had a 47 per cent. increase in price and a 1.1 per cent. increase in investment. Yorkshire Water has had a 33 per cent. increase in price and a 0.5 per cent. increase in investment.
Overall, capital expenditure in the water industry is now running at some £1.65 billion a year. That is more or less the same as the level of capital investment pre-privatisation. When the water companies tell us that those rises in charges have been due directly to improved investment, we should examine carefully what they are saying. How on earth can increased bills be justified if the investment is not being made?

Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already had one chance to intervene.
At the same time, profits have soared. We are talking about a captive market. Each water company has a monopoly in its own area. We all have to pay, so they have a guaranteed income. It is a very low-risk business. On average, water companies in England and Wales have shown a 125 per cent. increase in pre-tax profits from 1989–90 to 1993–94. The water companies have an answer to that. They say that two thirds of the profit goes into capital investment. That may well be the case, but what about the other third?
When we examine the dividend growth of the water companies, the answer becomes very clear. As the National Consumer Council pointed out last week,
Dividend payouts attributed to 31 appointed water businesses were about £300 million in 1989–90 … and £1,365 million in 1992–93. The growth of dividend payments"—
that is, gross dividends from core services—
was 63 per cent. per year on average.
That is where the profits have gone.
If we ask the water companies, they will tell us openly and brazenly that dividend growth is their No. 1 priority, and that it is their paramount duty because they put it in the prospectus when they floated the companies for privatisation.
The Opposition believe that the customer, not dividend growth, should be the No. 1 priority, because all customers pay for the water and sewerage services we receive.

Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Money that should be paying for improved water and sewerage services is going instead into dividend growth. If we want to know why, we have simply to look at the share option schemes that are available to the directors, chief executives and chairmen of the water companies.
Then we have the point about the access to capital markets. There has been a modest increase in the borrowing levels of water companies over the past four or five years, but, as the National Consumer Council points out,
borrowings have been relatively modest, and no significant capital was raised through equity issues (though one of the key reasons for privatisation was that the companies would be free to raise money in the markets).
I have to say to both the hon. Gentlemen who have intervened so far that the answer to their question about where the funds for long-term investment—which will last for 40 or 50 years—will come from is precisely where the Government said it would when they put the Bill through the House—from a long-term borrowing strategy on part of the water companies, so that today's consumers do not have to bear the entire burden of 50 years' worth of investment all at once.

Mr. Michael Bates: I assume that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the leader of the Labour party —the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) —who said in The Times on 21 June that she would be in favour of taking water companies back into public ownership. Clearly, that would have a cost attached to it in purchasing the equity stock. Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of what that cost would be?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting my right hon. Friend. She said that the water companies should be brought back within public control. That is something that I and the Labour party wholeheartedly endorse.

Mr. Bates: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, because he has in his hand what I suspect to be a Conservative party briefing note, not a copy of The Times.

Mr. Bates: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but I seek your guidance. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) clearly said that I had misquoted the right: hon. Member for Derby, South. I would never do that. I want to put the exact quotation on the record. May I have the opportunity to do that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Smith: Even at this distance, I can tell the difference between a copy of The Times and an A4 sheet of briefing paper from Conservative central office.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) say earlier that he would not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly wasting his time trying to intervene.

Mr. Smith: I am conscious that time is short, and I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak.
One great claim advanced time and again during privatisation was that the great advantage would be access to borrowing, capital markets and equity funding. That has not happened. There are low levels of borrowing, there have been no requests for equity from the markets, and there have been higher and higher charges for the customer.
We were told that the water companies would invest in non-core activities—they would roam the globe, seeking opportunities for investment, purchase and enterprise. Perhaps we could be told why no less than £727 million has had to be written off because of a variety of mishaps and losses among the non-core subsidiaries and associates of the 10 principal water companies.
We need to examine the levels of disconnection. After privatisation, the number initially rocketed. In most areas of the country, they have since edged downwards, but in some—such as the Thames Water area—they are still rising strongly. Perhaps it was no accident that Thames Water donated £50,000 to the Conservative party in advance of the last general election.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is a curious inconsistency in the legislation governing water disconnections. There will be no disconnections in Scotland, because the Government introduced a last-minute amendment to that effect in the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Scottish Ministers said in Committee, "There will be no disconnections in Scotland; the water authorities in Scotland do not need disconnection as a power to recover debt." However, each time we press the responsible Ministers for England and Wales to adopt the same approach, they say, "The water companies must have disconnection as a power of last resort." One part of the Government says one thing and another part says the opposite.
The Opposition believe that water disconnection has no place in a civilised society. It cannot be right to cut off the means of life and health simply to recover a debt. A Labour Government will ensure that disconnection of domestic water is prohibited.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned Scotland, I shall refer to the Strathclyde referendum. What could be clearer than the result of that? Some 97 per cent. of people said that they had no time for the Government's proposals for the semi-privatisation of Scottish Water. However, the views of those 97 per cent. were utterly ignored by the Government. Once again, they have ridden roughshod over the wishes of the Scottish people.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Strathclyde referendum. However, is there not some contradiction in the Labour party's approach? It supports publicly owned and controlled water north of the border, yet the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that he is prepared to accept privately owned water south of the border.

Mr. Smith: I would take what the hon. Gentleman said more kindly if he had fought anywhere near so well and so


effectively on the future of water in Scotland as did my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish seats. We are committed to ensuring full and proper public control of water and sewerage services throughout Britain. In England and Wales, the quickest, most effective and most practical way to achieve that would be to improve and toughen the regulatory regime.
Compulsory water metering has been mentioned. Anglian Water has already introduced, by compulsion, water meters in parts of its patch. By doing so, it is ignoring the severe impact of that on large families and people with disabilities. Metering takes no account of human need, it rations by price, and it produces precious little environmental benefit. A Labour Government will prohibit compulsory metering in people's homes.
I want to concentrate for a moment on what has happened to the salaries and share options of the chairmen and chief executives of the water companies. The chairman of North West Water last year received a salary of £338,000. That is a sixfold increase since privatisation. Is the service provided by North-West Water six times better because of the chairman's remuneration? Of course it is not.
The briefing prepared by Thames Water in advance of the debate notes that its chairman receives a salary of £250,000—modest by comparison with the chairman of North-West Water. The briefing note explains:
A recent Daily Telegraph survey concluded that he was in fact underpaid, considering the responsibility he holds.
I ask the Minister to consider the responsibility held by a signalman working for Railtrack and to compare and contrast the standards applied in that situation with those that apply to the chairmen and chief executives of water companies.
In most of the water companies, there are poor levels of general service, the handling of complaints is inadequate and it is us, the poor old consumers, who are picking up the price tag. Privatisation has been a mess. What we need is better and tougher regulation. The public interest should come first—on charges, investment, water clean-up, directors' remuneration, what happens to dividends, disconnections and metering policy. There is no sign of the Government rising to that important challenge.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the water industry in England and Wales on its achievements since privatisation and commends the proposals for restructuring in Scotland which will facilitate the use of private finance; notes the improvements which have been made in environmental standards in particular with regard to the quality of rivers and bathing waters, and the consistently high quality of drinking water; notes that the industry in England and Wales is pressing ahead with a £3 billion a year investment programme which will result in further improvements to the upgrading of water and sewerage systems without placing undue burdens on consumers; and further notes that the privatised industry is successfully using its expertise to gain major contracts overseas, something which could not have been achieved under the policies of the last Labour government.'.
I apologise for the fact that I have a stinking cold and therefore may not be so intelligible as I normally am.
My hon. Friends and I were astonished by the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I heard more ill-informed twaddle, if I am being charitable—or more misleading distortions, if I am not—than I would have believed possible. What the hon. Gentleman said flies in the face of reality, as I shall show; it was typical of a party and a spokesman who know that they can say what the devil they like because they do not expect ever to be in a position to deliver their promises—and for once, I am not talking about the Liberals.
The motion refers first to water disconnections, which have fallen from some 18,600 in 1992–93 to 12,400 in 1993–94. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that before a disconnection can take place an exhaustive legal process involving considerable time and effort must be completed. I was fascinated to learn that he intends to do away with disconnections, as they have been legal in England and Wales since 1945 and the legislation allowing them was introduced by a Labour Government.
There is no evidence from the Department of Health of any health problems related to disconnections. My local water company carried out a survey in connection with a Bill—a ten-minute Bill, I believe—presented by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). The vast majority of customers who were asked for their views on disconnections wanted the ability to disconnect to be retained, because they did not believe any more than we do that genuine payers should subsidise non-payers.
Let us get the facts clear: the number of disconnections is falling; the power to disconnect has existed since 1945, when it was introduced by a Labour Government; there is no evidence of health problems resulting from disconnections; and, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, a lengthy legal process is necessary before any action can be taken.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have here an article from The Guardian of 17 June this year about a British Medical Association report on water disconnections. According to the headline, water firms are "risking health with cut-offs". That is the professional view.

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must take the advice of the Department of Health, the Chief Medical Officer and others associated with them. They tell me that there is no evidence of health problems resulting from disconnections. Personally, I would rather accept their view than that of the BMA.
The next issue raised in the motion is the increase in consumers' bills. Of course that has happened, but why? The real reason is a failure to invest over many years—typically, in the period of the last Labour Government. I remind the House that between 1976 and 1979 a Labour Government cut investment by a third and sewage treatment by 50 per cent., while overall capital expenditure was cut by nearly 50 per cent. When I stood for Parliament for the first time in 1979, the industrial towns of the north-west were experiencing problems: ancient sewers were collapsing because a Labour Government had not invested the amount necessary to ensure that they remained in good order.

Mr. Chris Smith: Why, then, was investment lower in the five years after the Conservative Government took over than in the last year of the Labour Government?

Mr. Atkins: We privatised the industry precisely because we recognised that the taxpayer could not go on bearing the burden imposed by a Labour Government's failure to spend money which any Government clearly found difficult to spend. That proves my point decisively; I rest my case.
The increases in consumers' bills were generated by the need to spend substantial sums in a variety of ways relating to directives that we must—and do—observe, together with the new infrastructure that has been introduced throughout England and Wales. Notwithstanding consumers' understandable criticisms of price increases—which, as I have said, have been caused by a lack of investment and capital expenditure—our prices are still among the lowest in Europe.

Sir Harold Walker: Will the Minister comment on the absurd inequities of basing water charges on long outdated historical rateable values? Only today, I received a letter from a Mrs. Woolford, who writes:
I enclose copies of the water rates for 3 first floor flats all within 50 yards of each other, all of which rightly are in band A for the council tax.
Each flat has 1 bath, 1 toilet, 1 wash basin"—
yet the water charges differ widely. That is daft; what does the Minister suggest should be done about it?

Mr. Atkins: That is one reason why metering is being considered, along with other alternatives such as council tax banding. I shall deal with the point shortly.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I am conscious of the time. An intervention by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on the ten-minute Bill has limited this Opposition day somewhat. I should like to make some progress; if I give way to everyone, I shall not have the opportunity to reply to the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and to allow hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak.
Next, the motion mentions water companies' profits. Of course their profits are up, and so they should be: without those profits no investment would take place, and some two thirds are being reinvested. Last year—the most recent for which figures have been announced—my local company, North West Water, provided a dividend of £86 million, but invested £424 million in new projects. Shareholders are entitled to a return on their investment, to attract them to invest so that the necessary infrastructure improvements can be made.
The motion refers to directors' pay. It is not for me as a Minister—or, indeed, for the Government—to intervene in private sector salaries, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear—and I agree—that company directors throughout industry should appreciate public concern about the amounts that they pay themselves. Nevertheless, whatever view we may express, shareholders—whether institutional or individual—have the power to intervene, and they should use that power if necessary.
Let us put the matter in perspective. In most cases such as those raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the total salary package of directors is about one fifth of 1 per cent. of turnover, and sometimes much

less. Is this really all that the Labour party can talk about, in the context of the vast sums being spent on the water industry?

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I certainly will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has already delayed our proceedings. I suspect that in this I may have the support of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, but perhaps not.
The motion refers to the need for high standards of drinking water and sewage treatment. Of course we agree with that. Some 98.7 per cent. of our drinking water is of a very high standard. It is arguably the best in Europe, and possibly in the world.
The other day, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) was reported in one of the more lurid tabloids as having referred to tap water that was "substandard or even dangerous", in spite of the fact that 98.7 per cent. of our water is of a very high standard. Her comments are scaremongering of the worst kind. If there are any problems of water pollution, they are referred to the drinking water inspectorate and prosecutions are brought if necessary. There is a legally binding requirement on operators to make improvements in such cases. The incidents to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South made great play did not merit such treatment.
As for the drinking water directive—

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Atkins: No, I shall not give way.
As for the drinking water directive, the United Kingdom has made clear to the Commission the changes that we believe should be made. We believe that a revised directive should be based on sound scientific and medical advice such as that in the World Health Organisation's recent guidelines and that standards should strike a proper balance between benefits to the consumer and the likely costs of achieving them. We also believe that the directive should accord fully with the principle of subsidiarity but, until revisions are agreed, the United Kingdom will comply fully with the provisions of the existing directive.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Under the revised guidelines, will properties such as colour, which do not matter—if one lives on peaty soil, there will be a slight coloration in the water but it makes no difference to people's health—count in any test?

Mr. Atkins: There is clearly some concern among consumers about the colour of water and, generally speaking, water companies prefer water to be clear and bright. However, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend because peaty water in whisky adds a little flavour which might not otherwise be there.
The motion deals next with sewage treatment, of which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made great play. Over the years, Governments of all political persuasions believed that coastal tides were sufficient to disperse sewage from outfalls without it being necessary to treat it. The advice now from health and scientific organisations is that that is no longer acceptable. We understand that—

Mr. Enright: Some of us knew that a long time ago.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but Governments of any party believed otherwise for many decades. Labour was told that the original view was unacceptable when it was in office. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the bathing water directive was promulgated in 1976, but what did the Labour Government do about it? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Nicholls: They washed their hands of it.

Mr. Atkins: Indeed, they washed their hands of it, as my hon. Friend says.
The Opposition persists in their campaigns to knock the state of British beaches and do untold damage to our tourist industry in the process. They are only too ready to trumpet failures to meet the necessary standards—often marginal failures—but when improvements are made, we hear nothing from them.
Last year, about 80 per cent. of our bathing waters exceeded the mandatory coliform standards set down in the bathing water directive. In 1987, only 56 per cent. did so. The water industry and the Government are firmly committed to completing our programme as quickly as possible, but the improvement schemes have to be paid for.
The Government and the water companies have faced the difficulties and we are acting on them. As I said, vast sums of money are being spent. In the north-west—in Liverpool and Fleetwood—about £500,000-plus is being spent to ensure that pollution on the Merseyside and Fylde coasts is a thing of the past by the end of next year.
We have also taken a great deal of trouble over river quality. About 90 per cent. of rivers in England and Wales and 95 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole are already classified as being of good or fair quality compared with an average of 75 per cent. for rivers of comparable quality in the European Community. I might add that our monitoring and record keeping is among the best and most publicly available in Europe.
We are continuing to make significant progress in improving inland and coastal water quality. The National Rivers Authority—a much respected organisation—has recently reported a net improvement of almost 11 per cent. in river quality in England and Wales between 1990 and 1992.
In addition to the improvements that will result from obligations under EC and domestic legislation, we announced only recently—on 6 July—that between 1995 and 2000, £522.3 million of spending is to aimed specifically at achieving further improvements in river quality. Those improvements will be the result of tighter discharge consents for sewerage works and will be incorporated in the new statutory water quality objectives as they are introduced. The most cost-effective use of expenditure will be determined by the NRA in consultation with water and sewerage companies. That will allow a number of high-priority schemes to go ahead, which would not otherwise have been the case.
The Labour party must make up its mind—does it want bills kept down at the expense of clean beaches or rivers, or the reverse? It cannot have it both ways without even greater expense to the consumer and the taxpayer. A balance has to be struck, and we, the NRA, Ofwat and the water companies are doing just that.
We meet, or we will meet by the end of next year, the EC directives. Other countries—notably France, Germany,

Spain and Portugal—recognise, for example, that the high cost of implementing the urban waste water directive must be spread over more years than is proposed at the moment.
I will deal with the south-west for a moment, because I know that it is of interest to many of my colleagues who raise their concerns with me whenever they have the opportunity to do so. The Government are striving to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the desire for environmental improvements and the costs associated with them. South West Water alone—

Mr. David Jamieson: The Minister is talking to himself.

Mr. Atkins: That is something that I do quite often.
In the 1990s, South West alone is investing about £900 million on improvements to the arrangements at seaside towns for the collection of sewage and the provision of sewage treatment. The programme, known as "Clean Sweep", consists of 33 individual schemes and will result in cleaner bathing and other coastal waters throughout the south-west.
In view of price pressures, it is reasonable that any waste water improvement schemes should not be undertaken any earlier than is cost-effective, provided that they are completed by the legal deadlines. In determining future price limits, the Director-General of Water Services will be considering the most cost-effective way for South West Water to meet its legal obligations, including those set out in the urban waste water treatment directive.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the link between investment and the cost to the consumer, and although I welcome the steps being taken to restrict the rate of price increases in water and sewerage charges, will he tell us what action is currently being taken to deal with the costs that 3 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom —the people of Devon and Cornwall—are obliged to pay for about one third of the country's investment as a whole? When will the Government acknowledge that action is required to deal with the current situation even though we welcome measures to deal with a future situation?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understandably feels very strongly about this and has spoken to me about it many times, as he has to the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Prime Minister. Clearly, the problems in the south-west are endemic in the sense that the south-west has a substantial number of beaches and a smaller number of people who can afford to meet the cost of improvements required under EC directives while we endeavour to keep costs at an acceptable level.
If my hon. Friend is fair—I know him to be so—he will accept that we have spent a great deal of time and effort on, for example, river improvements. Where the NRA advised that it was unnecessary to spend excessive amounts of money to alleviate the problems of my hon. Friend's constituents, we took that advice. I assure him that I, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will continue to look for every legitimate way in which we can assist his constituents who are paying bills which, for all sorts of reasons, they are called upon to pay.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend be saying something in his speech or will the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), say something in the winding-up speech about the considerable


efforts that the Government have made in putting our representations to the Office of Water Services to reduce water charges after they had virtually tripled? Has my hon. Friend detected the same degree of enthusiasm in the South West water authority to co-operate and to ensure that water charges are kept to an absolute minimum as he has detected among his colleagues on the Back Benches?

Mr. Atkins: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has taken note of that and certainly intends to address it in his winding-up speech. There are concerns in the south-west and we understand that fact, as does the regulator, who appreciates that the matter needs addressing. It is his responsibility and task to do so. My hon. Friend knows that, at the end of next week the regulator will be announcing the new price figures. My hon. Friend will therefore have to wait until then.
The Government and the director-general are determined to ensure that the rapid price increases which we have seen in recent years should not be repeated over the next five years. Those large increases were unavoidable, as I said earlier, but they must be a thing of past. The director-general—[Interruption.] Opposition Members keep suggesting that somehow I am not telling the truth. The fact remains that the investment that has had to be made is a direct result of the Labour party's inaction, inefficiency and incompetence. We know that. That is what people are having to bear in the south-west as much as anywhere else.

Mr. William O'Brien: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, only a few months ago, he was in charge of water services in Northern Ireland? At that time, there was no problem of capital investment, no massive salaries were being paid to chairmen because the Minister was in charge of water services. There was no regulator, no massive increase of charges and the industry, as the Minister knows, was in public control. How does he justify the fact that, when he was in charge in Northern Ireland, there was none of what we are hearing today? I have listened carefully to the Minister. Will he explain why Northern Ireland enjoys those benefits without the regulator, without massive increases in chairmen's salaries, and without the dividends, while the rest of the United Kingdom is having problems?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that the Minister has got the question. The only problem is that it does not seem relevant to the motion, which is about England and Wales. I shall leave it to the Minister to judge.

Mr. Atkins: I shall not be drawn into a debate about Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] simply because this is not the place to do so. I shall not be drawn except to say that, before I left that fascinating and enjoyable part of the United Kingdom, one of the problems on my ministerial desk was that we were going to have to spend about £500,000,000 to improve water quality in Northern Ireland. That money would have to be found from the taxpayers of Northern Ireland. One of the matters that we had to consider was how that would be done. One of the options would have been privatisation, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
I shall conclude my remarks in relation to the director-general who, as I said to my hon. Friend the

Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), is nearing the completion of his first periodic review of water price limits. Hon. Members will want to know that the outcome will be announced on 28 July, when the director-general will tell us the new annual price limits for each company for the 10-year period beginning on 1 April 1995. He has already said that he hopes that, nationally, it may be possible to limit overall price increases on average to between 0 and 2 per cent. above the rate of inflation. That will supersede the current average ceiling of 4 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
Before I leave the south-west, it would be invidious of me not to mention our friends the Liberal Democrats. God bless them. What would we do without them? The Liberal Democrats say one thing here and another thing there. They say one thing on one doorstep and another on the very next doorstep. I shall refer to the Liberal Democrat candidates who stood at the Euro-elections down in the south-west.
Their manifesto, which they called "Unlocking Britain's Potential", contained a pledge to provide
national and European help with the unfair burden of local investment needed to clean up Britain's beaches".
What European funding? I would like to know, as I suspect the House would, what European funding they think will be available. How much national support do they expect to be able to find? Will it come from other parts of the country? Is it something on which the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has been consulted? Would he have any views about the cost implications of that? Who will pay? Will he be happy that his constituents in the north of England have to subsidise those in the west country?
Where exactly do the Liberal Democrats stand on those issues? They say:
Liberal Democrats are determined to have clean beaches and lower bills.
We want to hear from them how that can be done. It is no good saying all sorts of things on the doorstep which they cannot justify here, where such things ought to be justified. That is why the Liberal Democrats are all things to all men, women, children, animals and tabloids and why, when it comes to general elections, the vast majority of the public know that they count for very little.
That is enough of the Liberal Democrats. What, then, of the future? I have said that price rises must be contained. Most of the work has been done to catch up with the investment which needed to happen as a result of the Labour Government's incompetence. The directives to which I referred, must continue to be implemented, but over a reasonable time scale and on the basis of the best contemporary and technical health advice. All methods of charging must be considered. Is metering fair, bearing in mind that electricity and gas consumers are used to metering. Perhaps that is too long-term an answer.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Minister aware that, on Monday, the local residents association in Crosby in my constituency presented a 11,000-signature petition against compulsory water metering? Does not the Minister think that water metering ought to be an option for consumers rather than a compulsion in all houses? Does he not think that the whole issue of pricing centres around the high price of water since


privatisation, rather than that of metering? The option of linking price to council tax bands is a fairer way than compulsory metering.

Mr. Atkins: The argument with which we are faced is what are the various options by which charges may be levied for water. That discussion probably crosses the House because some hon. Members believe that metering is the answer, some believe that council tax banding is an answer, some believe that ratable values extended to 2005 are the answer.

Mr. Morley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) clearly does not. All those issues must be examined. Indeed, I have asked the individual authorities, the Water Services Association and others to look at the matter and to give me some advice on what they believe is best. Whatever that advice is, a balance must be struck between the cost to the consumer and the need for environmental improvement. That is just what the Government, Ofwat the National Rivers Authority, water companies and others are doing.
I ought to draw to the attention of the House one point to which I did not notice any reference in the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—the worldwide recognition of what has been achieved in Britain by our water companies and what they have achieved abroad in export orders. For example, North West Water has obtained a contract for £1.5 billion to upgrade, extend and operate the sewerage system throughout Malaysia, a £285 million contract to operate water and waste systems in Mexico City. [Laughter.] Opposition Members are laughing about the fact that British industry has been successful in obtaining major contracts abroad and they do not consider it to be important.

Mr. Enright: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I am not giving way. I shall continue telling the House and the country what has been achieved by North West Water, for example. It has obtained another two contracts for treatment plants in Sydney and Melbourne, valued at £75 million with an estimated revenue of £400 million.
Thames Water, the company which looks after the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, has a contract to supply Ismit in Turkey with a water supply scheme worth £450 million. It has a 45 per cent. stake in a consortium developing a £344 million waste water infrastructure in Mexico. Severn Trent, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has a £240 million contract for Mexico City and a 20-year concession to upgrade and operate sewerage facilities in New York state. So the achievements of British companies abroad, creating income for this country and protecting jobs goes on.
Since I became the Minister at the beginning of the year, a number of politicians from all parts of the world have come here to find out what the Department and the British Government are doing in relation to water and I shall give the House an indication of who. We have had politicians, at local and national level, from Israel, the Ukraine—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like the facts. The fact is that we have a worldwide reputation on water and

that people come here to find out what has been achieved. People have come from Israel, the Ukraine, Oman, Brazil, Australia, Greece and Portugal. They want to know what has been achieved and to learn about our successes. What about Labour?

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I will not give way any more because I am conscious of the time.
What about Labour? Labour cannot make up its mind what to do with this success story. Labour has produced a document called "In Trust for Tomorrow". The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury reckons that 680,000 jobs will come of that. But who will pay? The document suggests an environmental court in which losing plaintiffs will have their costs paid by the taxpayer.

Mr. Chris Smith: indicated dissent.—

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman specifies in his document that there will be free charges. The document suggests greater regulation and more controls. Who pays? Has anyone checked with the shadow Treasury team? This is not "in trust for tomorrow"—like so much of the Labour party's policy, it is in hock for tomorrow.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have looked closely at the motion and the amendment and I see that they both refer specifically to Scotland. The Minister proposes to conclude his speech without making any mention of the Scottish dimension to this issue. Is it in order for him so cavalierly to ignore the Scottish dimension to this issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the Minister's speech. The Minister is still making his speech—

Mr. Enright: I bet you are glad of that; yours is much better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is making many sedentary comments, most of which are not very helpful—although I accept the last one.

Mr. Atkins: I have a question for the Labour party. Will it renationalise water? We have heard from the acting leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said on 21 June 1994:
'There is one area … where we might be looking for some new form of public control, and that is water".
The leader-elect, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said of the major utilities, such as water, on 6 July:
We believe that the great utilities must be treated as public services and should be owned by the public.
Then we have the Labour party commission on the environment document which says:
We will ensure that the actions of all private water companies are under public control.
Yet on the wireless this morning, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he would not renationalise, but that he was in favour of more regulation. That is simply a cop-out under pressure. What does it mean? Do his comments mean more intervention in company operations? Do they mean more regulation than is the case now? We have the most regulated water industry in Europe. Would he direct resources to one area


at the expense of another or would he subsidise consumers' bills? Who will pay? Has the hon. Gentleman cleated his comments with the shadow Treasury team?
The fact is, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, as we know and as the House knows, more Labour regulation equals more Labour interference, and that means more cost to the company, the customer and the taxpayer. Prices are now steadying as environmental improvements continue. That is the right balance, and that is why I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government's amendment and to oppose the misleading nonsense from the Opposition.

Mr. Richard Burden: I would not be letting out too many secrets if I said that, at the moment, the water industry in general and Severn Trent Water in particular are not the most popular institutions in the midlands. Why should they be? Last week, after careful examination of the company's accounts, we learned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, that John Bellak, the former chair of Severn Trent, got a pay-off last year of £500,000. His salary had already gone up from £51,000 a year just before privatisation to £179,000 a year in the last year in which he was there.
Mr. Bellak has also done rather well in other ways. He, like many directors and chief executives of water companies, had been subject to share option deals. In the year ending March 1993, he exercised 107,572 share options at an option price of £2.62 per share. At the close of trading on 22 February 1994, the market price for Severn Trent shares was £5.83 per share. To work out the benefit of those share options, we would need to know whether the shares bought under the option were then sold and at what price. That is not absolutely clear at the moment because Mr. Bellak has not said anything about it. However, an article in the Observer suggested:
company chairman John Bellak made £226,000, pre-tax, on the sale of 100,000 shares
from his share option dealings. He did not do too badly, did he?
When there was a public outcry over the £500,000 pay-off to John Bellak, the cry that came back from the water companies, which may be echoed by Ministers, was, "Well, it was in his contract." We must ask, of course, who negotiated that contract in the first place. Although Ministers may now say that it is nothing to do with them and that they rather disapprove of these big pay increases, they are not exactly neutral in terms of how people like John Bellak came to be running the water industry. They appointed those people in the first place.
It is interesting that in 1987, when Mr. Bellak was chair of Severn Trent, the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Cannock and Burntwood said:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman, Mr. John Bellak, is both diligent and competent—indeed, one might describe him as a good bloke—and that under his leadership, the Severn-Trent water authority looks forward immensely to being in the vanguard of privatisation?"—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 921.]
One would look forward to privatisation if one was going
to make so much out of it. Mr. Bellak is also a prominent Conservative party supporter, and twice stood as a Conservative candidate in general elections.
It does not go like that for all the staff of the water companies. The staff at Severn Trent face reorganisation.

Some will do all right out of it, but the protections that they have enjoyed for many years will be swept away by the privatised water company. It seems that there are standards for the people who actually do the work which are different from the standards for those who run the privatised water companies. Yet the response of the water companies when these things are criticised is that somehow they have been misunderstood. I do not think that we misunderstand them. The people who misunderstand them are the Government.
The Conservative party has not always taken its present view of the water industry. Back in the 19th century, it was significant that Conservatives such as Joseph Chamberlain, again from the midlands, were prominent in setting up a proper, municipally run water industry. Arguably the best contribution to public health in that century was the establishment of clean, wholesome supplies of water under municipal control. No doubt, if a Conservative suggested that today, he would be regarded as a dangerous pinko. However, that was the view taken all those years ago.
Now, of course, we are in an era of privatisation. Now we are in an era when the salaries of the top executives shoot through the roof. We are in an era when profits have gone up by 117 per cent. since privatisation and when dividends went up by 63 per cent. on average between 1989–90 and 1992–93. For consumers, it has obviously been a very different story. Prices have gone up on average by 68 per cent. in the Severn Trent area.
The water companies say that they are misunderstood and that they are putting all the money into investment. It is true that there has been an increase in investment in the Severn Trent area. However, I ask Ministers to consider what happened, before privatisation, when a Conservative Government were in power. Prices were ruthlessly pushed up through the roof while investment was driven down by cash limits and controls on borrowing the like of which had not been seen in the water industry. Ministers have some explaining to do on that one.
The fact is that privatisation was sold as a way to boost investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Government said that the water companies would have access to the money market and that they would have access to investment. They said that the companies could extend their share issue. We have not seen much of that since privatisation. Certainly there have been some increases in borrowing in the past two or three years, but in terms of the scale of their operations, water companies have a very low gearing. As for extra share issues, we have hardly seen them at all. About 69 per cent. of that investment is being financed directly by consumers through their water bills.
The Government said that they wanted water companies to operate in the private sector. I do not know of any other private body which knows that it can jack up prices by such an amount and still be sure of a captive market. Of course, that is the case with water because it is a natural monopoly. The consumer has no choice but to use water when it is needed and if they can afford to.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burden: I will not give way, as other hon. Members want to speak.
We have seen the growth of water poverty. Pensioners and people on low incomes now have to choose between essentials, and must decide whether they can afford to have


a bath if they have a water meter. They must choose between paying the water bill or cutting back on essentials elsewhere. There is evidence that that is going on. Ministers may close their eyes to that, but evidence has come from local authorities, the National Consumer Council and from anti-poverty organisations. If they looked, they would see that that is the truth.
Nobody in the late 20th century should be put in the position of not being able to afford something as vital to health as a wholesome supply of water. Some water companies have a solution to the problem. Severn Trent has a great wheeze which they call a prepayment water meter. It is a bit like a coin-operated gas or electricity meter, only the water meter does not accept coins. A person buys a card which he or she charges up with a certain amount of time, and that is put into the water meter. That provides the person with a supply of water for a specific length of time.
The problem, of course, comes if the person is not able to charge up the card. What happens then is that the person runs out of water and he or she is effectively cut off. When Ministers say that they are pleased that the disconnection rate has gone down, we must remind them that it has gone down following the period after privatisation in which the rate actually went up. Are they including the question of disconnection by prepayment water meters in their disconnection figures, and if not, why not?
In the Birmingham area, Severn Trent has embarked on a trial with prepayment water meters. The trial has already led to a phenomenal rate of self-disconnection. It is arguable that prepayment meters are unlawful under sections 60 to 63 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Are the Government doing anything about that? Are they investigating the matter? The answer simply is no.
We need a new deal for our water service, and we certainly need new methods of charging. I do not want to see—as apparently Ofwat does—the introduction of compulsory water metering. That would discriminate against families on low incomes, the disabled and families with children. We should be moving towards a system of payment according to the council tax which can be related to the ability to pay. We must end the scandal of water disconnections and also the scandal of prepayment meters and self-disconnection. We need a regulator which stands up for the interests of the consumer. That has not been the case with Ofwat, and it is about time that that was changed. We need changes which benefit the system and which recognise the true cost of water bills, because that has not happened in recent years. But most of all, we need a change in attitude in the water industry.
As privatisation came along, the language of the industry changed. Suddenly, we did not have consumers —we had customers, as if there were somehow a choice about whether one paid or not. We did not have a public service—we had a business. Water is a public service. There is no more vital element than water.
If one does not have access to a wholesome supply of water, it is obvious to everyone—apart, it seems, from the Minister—that there will be health risks. That is why we need to get back—I shall say it—to a democratic system of public control of the water industry. We need a system

where water is treated as a public service and consumers are not treated as mere commodities, because that is the situation that we have at the present time.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Opposition Members never cease to amaze me, and tonight they have amazed me more than ever before in the way that they have tried to turn the genuine success story of the British water industry into a failure. Sometimes they simply use blatantly misleading facts, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was guilty of that.
Their other tactic is to do down the work that the men and women of the water industry have done to turn it around and to make it such a success. By unjustifiably attacking the industry, as they have in the debate, they are rubbishing the ordinary men and women who have put so much over the years into building up the business into a great success.
The hon. Gentleman represents a London seat, and he was rude about Thames Water. The hon. Gentleman is a neighbour of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Does the hon. Gentleman keep his eyes closed when he walks around the city? Has he not seen the big holes in the ground with Mr. Joe Murphy's name on a sign above them and people digging them? Does he not realise that the London ring main is one of the biggest capital schemes in London for many years? Speaking from my own experience of the service I get when I have to use Thames Water's customer services, it is vastly better than it was before privatisation.
One of the remarks which the hon. Gentleman made which absolutely staggered me was that water companies are now collectively spending very much the same as they did pre-privatisation. That is clearly wrong. We know that they will be spending £30 billion before the end of the decade.
A research paper from the Library makes it clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that expended capital by the water industry does not include operating expenditure incurred as a result of compliance costs. If one improves bathing water and river water, one must put in some capital. But the vast majority of money goes on the day-to-day costs of running a plant to a much higher standard than it was run before. Clearly if one tipped sewage out in the sea untreated, and then tipped it into the sea treated, one would spend more money on a day-to-day basis than before. That is why those annual running costs must be put on to customers' bills—that is the only way.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about a success story, I suggest that he goes to the north-east of England where the success of Northumbria Water and North East Water has been evident to everyone. My constituency has the distinction of having the largest man-made lake in Europe, the Kielder reservoir. Incidentally, that scheme was invested in before privatisation, and will prove its worth in the future.
An interesting point which my hon. Friend the Minister made related to what would happen if a scheme of unifying water charges—as the Liberal Democrats suggest—was introduced, and a national contribution was made to the problems of the south-west. The ratepayers and water consumers of Northumberland who invested many years


ago in capacity would then find their bills going up to pay for an area which did not invest at that time. That would be highly unfair.
The Kielder dam provides guaranteed water supplies to customers and industrial consumers in the north-east of England. One of the area's latest arrivals from abroad, the Fujitsu factory, has moved to the north-east simply because Northumbria Water could guarantee a regular supply. When the factory at Newton Aycliffe in County Durham starts to operate fully, it will use the daily equivalent of water to that used by a town of 100,000 people. The company went to the north-east because Northumbria Water could guarantee a regular supply come droughts. We never have hosepipe bans because we invested in our infrastructure. Northumbria Water is a regular spender of capital—it has spent about £35 million this year on improving drinking water. The water quality in a rural area that often has difficult supply problems is above the national average. The company spent £155 million on new sewers and £275 million on new treatment works.
A rash of new sewage treatment works has opened up in the north-east. The local water companies seem keen to invite local Members of Parliament to open them. I cannot see the connection. We have not seen the hon. Member for Sedgefield for some time. One of the reasons might be that he opened a sewage works in his constituency recently. I had the pleasure of opening a £3 million scheme last Saturday in Haltwhistle in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who is not present at the moment, also opened a £13 million scheme. Northumbria Water is setting a standard and the pace for good service, good quality and profitable operations.
We have another water company in the north-east—North East Water, which is another success story. Its annual meeting took place today. We learnt an interesting fact about disconnections from that meeting today. We have heard much about disconnections tonight, but disconnections in the Northumbria Water and North West Water areas have decreased since privatisation. Last year North East Water, which covers a large part of Tyneside and Wearside where there are problems with poverty, did not disconnect one household. It has reduced its disconnections to nil this year, for which its customers should be grateful.
Even that company believes, however, that sanctions should be available against the "Can pay, won't pay" customer. Those are the people on whom disconnections are targeted, not those people who cannot pay because of difficulties. Water companies bend over backwards to help those who need help, which is why North East Water ended up with no disconnections. If the companies do not have that sanction it will be a tax on other consumers who pay their bills.
I realise that time is short so finally, in support of all those who work in the British water industry, I say "Well done." As a Northumbria Water consumer, and as someone who enjoys clean beaches and rivers, the 50p a day that I spend is money well spent. The River Tyne in my constituency is now the best salmon river in the country. Several years ago it was dead and nothing lived in it. Investment in clean beaches, clean rivers and a proper service system have shown that privatisation is an enormous success.

Mr. Nick Harvey: We are constantly told by the Government of the benefits of privatisation, but it is difficult to see that any benefits have arisen from the privatisation of the water industry. There is no competition in the industry, prices have risen dramatically, service is often poor, company profits have soared and, as other hon. Members have said, top salaries and share options are now at an indecent level.
At the time of privatisation, the Government claimed that water companies needed to be set free to raise capital in the marketplace. We were told that, by privatising the water companies, they would become more efficient. As a consequence, more money would be available to revitalise our water and sewerage system and the newly privatised water industry would be able to provide good arid reasonably priced service, while dealing with the very real environmental concerns. In addition to those promises, we were told that average price increases would be no more than 5 per cent. above the inflation rate each year.
We await with interest the results of the Office of Water Services report that is due to come out shortly. It is the first chance to consider comprehensively the consequences of the Government's policy on water. We will see the way in which the consumer has borne the brunt of the effects of those policies, while private water companies have benefited substantially.
The public are paying for successive Governments' lack of investment in, and neglect of, the water industry. I was intrigued to hear the Minister say that the problems were all down to Labour Governments. The Conservatives have been in power for twice as long as Labour since the war. It was a wonder that he did not put it all down to the 11 months of the Lib-Lab pact. [Interruption.] I thought that the more rational Conservative Members would grab at that.
The truth of the matter is that the policy has been a disaster. The consequences have been disastrous for the consumer, the environment and the tourist industry. Coming from a constituency where surfing and recreation in the sea waters are essential to our economic prospects, I say so with genuine concern.
The National Consumer Council concluded in its recent report:
consumers have paid too much towards the cost of investment in the industry and the companies have received the lion's share of the benefits of privatisation.
The NCC observed that domestic water bills have increased, on average, by 67 per cent. since privatisation.. Customers are paying £2 billion more than they would have been if charges had kept in line with inflation.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to an article in the Financial Times and quoted Mr. Joe Rogaly, who had been writing about the industry. Mr. Rogaly also commented:
Tory policies
on water
have made the poor worse off, in some cases absolutely as well as relatively. Making water high-cost for low income households is indecent.
Low-income households now spend more than 3 per cent. of their disposable income on water bills, compared with only 2 per cent. five years ago.
Other hon. Members have referred to the south-west, where local people are being forced to pay average water bills of more than £300—the highest in the country. Water


charges have doubled in the past five years and are set to double again. The south-west is an area with many people on low incomes and with the highest proportion of pensioners. Although the average bill is £300, many households are paying more than £600. A pensioner living alone in the South West Water area spends more than 9 per cent. of his or her income on water.
Frankly, local people simply cannot afford to pay those bills. Members of Parliament of all parties who represent the south-west have people writing to them and coming to their surgeries to make that point time and again.
Meanwhile, the water companies' profits have risen by more than 20 per cent. each year in the five years since privatisation and dividend payments to shareholders have increased by about 63 per cent. per year. Furthermore, the bills have often increased way beyond increases in operating costs. One can only conclude that the regulatory system has failed to safeguard the interests of consumers. The Government and the water companies seem to have forgotten their social obligation to provide a service to the British people at an affordable price.
The regulatory system has compounded the problems that consumers face. While Ofwat has limited powers, the Government have repeatedly said that tackling rising bills and water quality is in the hands of the regulator. The Director-General of Water Services made it clear that he considers that his hands are tied and his ability to act is restricted.
The Government need to act on water bills, but all we hear from them are short-term solutions. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) said in an earlier intervention, it is all very well coming up with a few schemes that will reduce the rate at which water bills increase during the next few years, but water bills in the south-west are already unacceptably high. We want some sign from the Government of how they are going to reduce those bills, not how bills that are already high will be increased, albeit at a slower pace.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East was right. It is ludicrous for 3 per cent. of the population to pay for the clean-up of 30 per cent. of the nation's designated beaches. Before privatisation, the cost of cleaning up would have been spread around the country. At the point of privatisation, the Government recognised the justice of that when they gave South West Water a green dowry. It was not enough, but it was an acceptance of the principle that taxpayers in other parts of the country should contribute towards the cost of the clean-up in the south-west.
The Minister made the ridiculous claim that we were saying different things in different parts of the country and summoned as evidence, not a local leaflet issued by the candidates to whom he was referring, but the party's national manifesto. That was the very same document that had been published and distributed throughout the country so that everyone, including not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but all his constituents could decide for themselves. We have made clear how we think the costs should met. Earlier, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said how the Labour party would meet them. We need to hear from the Government how they will pay for the clean up.
As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has already predicted, if the Government continue with their

policy of loading costs on to the householder, they will suffer electoral annihilation. They need to grasp that point now or the same trend that we saw in local, county, general and the recent European elections will return to haunt them again and again. The south-west will not tolerate the level of bills that it already faces, let alone any increase.
The Government's response has been to redesignate certain areas of water in the south-west, saying that they did not need the clean up that they were due to get. Some sensitive coastal waters are to be redefined as high-dispersal areas. In effect, that means that, in those areas, semi-treated sewage can be pumped out to sea. A couple of weeks ago, Ministers announced the slowdown of the clean-up of four beaches in the south-west. To my astonishment, some hon. Members greeted that information with delight. I even one heard one say on the radio that he did not know of any of his constituents who would put more than a toe in sea waters.
I tell hon. Members who hold that view that many people who use the sea in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) are noticing the state of the water and they will not be delighted by the news that the clean up is to be slowed down; nor will tourists and surfers who come from all over the country and who are increasingly discerning about where to spend their holidays. The savings that hon. Members believe might accrue to householders will be more than offset by the damage that will be done to tourism in the south-west and the fact that people will go elsewhere because they know that bathing waters there are safer.
The nation must pay for the clean up, which can be achieved by the means suggested by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls): getting the water companies in other parts of the country to pay some surplus of their profits. That is one way of paying for it, but it seems bizarre that the Conservatives should decide to privatise water companies, to put them into the marketplace and to allow them to try to achieve maximum profits for shareholders, and that they should then treat the industry as though it were still a nationalised industry and try to shift the profits from one area to other. It is, however, an option.
The second, and I think far better, option is to recognise that water bills are not a fair and just way of raising the money for the clean up, but that income tax is. That is why my party said in its manifesto, which we published throughout the country, that the costs should be borne by the taxpayer. Some parts of Europe are paying for the cost of their clean up by resort to European regional funds. It is false pride on Britain's part that is preventing Britain from drawing on the same source of funding.
I should like to raise the matter of how the unacceptably high level of bills is levied. A Labour Member said that the domestic rate valuations on which current water bills are based are ridiculously out of date. So, for the time being, it would be better to base them on council tax bands, which, although imperfect, have a benefits regime that helps people on low incomes and single-person households.
Our specific proposals are: the national taxpayer to help contribute to the costs; council tax banding to be used for computing bill levels; and a tougher regulatory regime. Only by implementing such proposals can the problems caused by privatisation be addressed. The Government must tackle the lack of price controls, protect the consumer and deal with the environmental challenge.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The only thing that can be said in favour of the speech of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) is that he bounced himself and let the cat of the bag. He called for increased taxation. Some people may not understand how, in a country where taxation levels are already plenty high enough, an hon. Member can make a plea for his constituents to be taxed more, but the hon. Gentleman told us how he reached that position.
The hon. Member for North Devon made a statement that was farcical, even for a member of the Liberal party. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would contain himself, he might learn something. It was obvious from his speech that he had learned nothing in the past four years, so today might be the opportunity to do so. We also learned that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the problems caused by pollution are caused by privatisation. [Interruption.] If he obtains a copy of Hansard tomorrow and looks up the quote, he will find that he said that the problems of pollution were caused by privatisation. The reason why we are in this position and why we have the problems of pollution is that Conservative and Labour Governments, over many years, have not invested in the water industry.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to ask, "What have you been doing in the past 15 years?" A more honest question would be, "What has the country been doing in the past 100 years?" This country has not invested properly in cleaning up the nation's coasts. We must deal with that. The only way to do so is by spending money.
One then enters the argument over how to raise those funds and how to spend them. To say that privatisation causes the problem, however, is nonsense. It would sound good on the doorstep. The hon. Member for North Devon gives separate arguments at separate doorsteps. He would no doubt say at one house, "We would have to increase national taxation, but it would not apply to you." All hon. Members know that the accusation to be laid at the door of Liberal Members is not that they change their attitude from constituency to constituency, but that they change their lines from doorstep to doorstep.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: As a prime example of doorstep hopping, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. To present a policy that states that the deficiencies of the past 100 years are "all down to privatisation, guy" is nonsense.

Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of his colleagues, some of whom are present, have advanced the same solution as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)? Is the hon. Gentleman saying to his hon. Friends that they are stepping out of line with party policy or that he is stepping out of line with the party, or are there different party policies for different constituencies in the south-west?

Mr. Nicholls: It is up to hon. Members to justify their position. I said that it was fundamentally dishonest to pretend that the problems that we are having to cope with in the country, and in the west country in particular, in some way stem from privatisation. I am particularly concerned about the position in the west country, which is unique. It is not the Government's fault that Brussels has

designated that about 455 beaches in this country must be brought up to standard and that 30 per cent. of those beaches are in the west country.
There is a water charge payer base of about 1.5 million people, who, let it be said, are predominantly elderly. That means that about 650,000 people in the west country have to be responsible for cleaning up one third of the nation's beaches. That is not the fault of the Government or of the House of Commons. The problem arises when one has a system whereby standards can be imposed which have not been debated in the House but which come from Europe.

Mr. Hicks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Nicholls: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) has views and enthusiasms about Europe which are probably shared by most Opposition Members, but not by most Conservative Members. The standards that we are having to meet were imposed on us by Europe. Any honest and realistic assessment of how we cope with the problem on behalf of our constituents stems from how we deal with that matter.

Mr. Hicks: Since I am invited to respond, I have to say that, speaking personally and for no one other than myself, I would have no objection if this country, as a member of the European Community, agreed collectively to enhance water quality standards and sewage disposal standards. Surely my hon. Friend would not disagree that, having taken that decision, the British Government could make whatever adjustments and modifications they desired to deal with the genuine problems that the hon. Gentleman and my constituents face in meeting the cost of essential capital investment. The funds are there.

Mr. Nicholls: To some extent, I can agree with my hon. Friend; but if conditions are imposed on us by Europe it is the Government's responsibility to do what they can to ameliorate their effects on us. The point that I am making to my hon. Friend, which is undeniable, is that the House did not set the standards or time scales, yet the Government have to cope with them.

Mr. Hicks: But we agreed them.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend may say that, but I do not believe, and I doubt whether any of my hon. Friends believes, that, if the House had set its own standards and time scales, we would be in this position. That is the essence of the problem.
We should be asking ourselves, and asking the Government, what has been done in the past four years to reduce the effect of charges. We heard something about that from the Minister of State and I suspect that we shall hear more about it from the Under-Secretary, but much effort has been made to ensure that, under doctrines such as subsidiarity, we get such decisions back within our own province and, as far as possible, try to set our own time scales.
No hon. Member is denying that beaches must be cleaned up. Nobody, with one or two exceptions, is suggesting that that can be done painlessly without it costing somebody money, but it is not sufficient to say that because the benefits are so marvellous we must proceed at breakneck pace. Whether we are spending money on water or any other worthwhile measure, we must try to ensure that we set a rate that people can afford, whether they are paying locally or nationally. It simply does not get


someone off the hook to say, "Put it on the national Exchequer, then it does not matter." We shall make progress only by going with the grain of what people think they can afford.
The second way to make progress is to convey to South West Water that it, too, has a social responsibility to people, not simply to say, "Look at the benefits, pay up and stop complaining," but to understand how grievously upset people feel. It is all very well to say that tourists from the north, where water charges are only 20p a day, and windsurfers benefit from such measures, but I must tell the hon. Member for North Devon that I am not particularly concerned about windsurfers from the north.
I am desperately concerned about an elderly population who face water charges that they can cannot afford. Ultimately, those whose prime method of transport may be a Zimmer frame do not need to be told by the hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Devon obviously thinks that pensioners' problems are humorous, but it is nonsense to think that one can tell elderly or retired people in straitened circumstances that the answer to their problems is to go windsurfing.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency that, like mine, is dependent on tourism. Is he seriously saying that he does not care about the water quality and conditions that surfers from the north will experience? I think that hoteliers and others in the tourism industry in his constituency will be appalled by his attitude.

Mr. Nicholls: Of course I am not saying that, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not doing so. I am saying that a balance must be struck between doing things that are good and desirable and doing them at a pace that can be afforded. To set out, for simple, cheap, populist reasons, one example where benefits would accrue to tourists and windsurfers and to ignore the fact that many other humble, quiet elderly people do not see the argument in quite the same way is dishonest.
As I said before being treated to a rehash of the hon. Gentleman's speech, South West Water must realise that it is not sufficient to say that charges are going up and that that is the end of it. I know the effort that Ministers have made in the past four years to convey a proper sense of urgency to South West Water about that.
Ultimately, what has been achieved? The hon. Member for North Devon said—I expect that he will deny it, but I wrote it down—that water charges were set to double again.

Mr. Harvey: indicated assent.

Mr. Nicholls: He is saying it again. The hon. Gentleman knows—and, if he does not, the hon. Member for North Cornwall certainly does—that there is no question of water charges doubling again. We now know, as a result of efforts that have been made, that the increase in water charges next year should be in the band of inflation plus 2 per cent. That is not a scenario that promises the doubling of water charges in the foreseeable future. It is the efforts that Ministers and west country Members from Devon and Cornwall have made that have made the difference.
I referred to the European dimension. I remember asking an Italian Environment Minister some years ago,

"Why are water standards imposed on Britain in a way that we know they are never imposed on the continent?" He said, "Because your political parties keep telling us in Europe how bad your beaches are, and if you keep going on about it ultimately we cannot turn a blind eye to it." I say from my experience in government and as a Back Bencher, imagine how much easier the job of Ministers would have been in trying to make progress in Europe if they had been able to say that Conservatives, Liberals, Labour and the rest—everyone in the west country across the political board—was behind Ministers' efforts to alleviate the problem.
We did not see that. We saw—especially from the Liberals, because in the west country the Labour party is merely a tedious irrelevance—that at every opportunity when Liberal Members could have combined with Conservative Members to achieve something, they did not want to know. The ultimate condemnation for the Liberal party when the history books finally come to be written will be that, faced with a choice between doing something to help people in the west country about water charges and merely exploiting the fact that the Government could not act quickly enough, exploitation won and their constituents missed out. That is the moral of this unhappy affair. The good point is that, at long last, the end of the misery is in sight.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: This debate should have been called by the Government, not by the Opposition. It is scandalous that the Government thought that they could get away with announcing the five-year pricing review next week without making a statement to the House. It would have caused no problem to ask Mr. Byatt to bring the review forward a week or two so that a statement could have been made to the House and the subject discussed properly.
Last week, fortunately, the National Consumer Council issued a report, which I commend to hon. Members, that carefully considered the financial facts and figures of the water industry in the past five years. Its conclusions are quite mild, although it says that consumers have not had a fair deal over water prices. The statistics speak for themselves.
Two failures stand out since water was privatised in England and Wales five years ago, and both can be laid at the Government's door. First, the water companies have failed to understand their job. Their purpose is simply to offer an essential service to the public, who want plenty of clean water for daily needs and who want their waste and sewage to be disposed of safely.
They do not want their supplies to be measured drop by drop. They do not want to worry if their children go through a patch of bedwetting or if their elderly relatives become incontinent— problems that 1.5 million households experience every year. They know that there is a cost, and always has been, but they expect water to be affordable and easy to pay for, because it is one service that no household can do without.
The second failure is that no one— certainly not the watchdog or the regulator— looks after the consumer's interest. The companies have taken the Government at their word. The companies are now bigwigs in the market: they have capital assets of £150 billion. So what do they do?
First, they reward themselves. They are, after all, extremely big fish in the market, and they think that they deserve extremely big pay-offs and rewards—£500,000 is the going rate. Secondly, they look around—as the Minister was boasting—to see how they can become even bigger. They look at the water supply in Turkey, Israel and around the world, and become global companies. Thirdly, as the Government suggest in their deregulation legislation, the companies look to see what constraints are burdens. They look at the European regulations to see if they can appeal against them or take longer to comply with them.
Finally, the companies run pricing tests to see how much of the burden the consumer will bear. As we have heard, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is dying to say, the tests have increased prices by more than 100 per cent. in the south-west. Price increases are running at an average of 67 per cent. To their delight, the companies find that consumers still buy their services, because they have no choice. Water is the ultimate monopoly.
Some households always find it hard to keep up and hard to pay, but the companies can disconnect them or put them on a stringent system of rationing and pre-payments. For the water companies, the world is their oyster. Who is there to prevent them enjoying the benefits?
People thought that, under privatisation, the person with that. job would be the regulator, Ian Byatt, but the facts have shown them to be wrong. He has worked to protect the companies in the market, but failed to exercise any control on behalf of consumers.
Mr. Byatt advances the premise that I have heard this afternoon, that water price rises will be kept between 0 and 2 per cent. Does that mean exactly 0 and 2 per cent.? No, it means between 0 and 2 per cent. above inflation. The water regulator has never accepted that water prices should rise by a negative K value, decrease or be limited to inflation. As a result, profits and perks have soared and the regulator has done nothing.
Indeed, he still says that surplus profits are perfectly in order, because they offer companies an incentive to make efficiency savings. The surplus profits and payouts that have been made do not represent anything in the way of an incentive to make efficiency savings. The regulator does not believe in regulation.
He started with an open debate on the cost of quality, but as soon as criticisms were made by the National Rivers Authority about the figures given by the companies, he closed the debate. We now have a one-man show—Mr. Byatt alone will decide the price caps. There will be: no appeal except to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The price review out next week has become a farce.
Even on consumer issues, where there is a consensus, the water regulator has failed to take action. When he has a regional chairman in Yorkshire who sticks up for consumers, Diana Scott, the water regulator sacks her. On no major issue has the water regulator backed consumer concern against the advice of water companies or the Government. That is no way to regulate our most crucial public asset.
We must sort the matter out for the public. The Government are clearly proposing to do nothing, but defend the system that we have. We must make proposals to resolve the problem. We can sort it out through the charging system. Are we paying for a commodity, such as

jam or potatoes, where one pays for what one uses, or are we paying for an essential service, such as health or cleansing, where one pays for what one needs?
At present, we pay through water rates, but we must have a new system, because the present one is out of date. The council tax banding system has replaced the rating system. That banding system offers a flexible, ready-made and cheap-to-run new property-based system. This afternoon is the first time that I have heard a Minister even suggest that it may be in order to use the banding system in that way.
I am cheered by that suggestion, but I shall believe it if the Government will tomorrow back it up by saying clearly that new houses do not have to be compulsorily metered. I will believe it if the Government give housing corporations and any new householder the option of metering or negotiating the cost with the water company on the basis of the council tax band. If they do that, I shall believe that the Government are genuine in their efforts.
I am speaking quickly without going into each subject in detail, because I am aware of the time. There is a conservation argument, but the Government, and certainly the water companies and the public, must be aware that one quarter of all water supplied through the system is lost through leakage.
A far cheaper way of conserving water supplies than placing the burden unfairly on domestic householders through metering would be to address the problem of the 25 per cent. leakage rate and introduce a programme to install showers, sprinklers and dual-flush toilets. That would save the same amount of water at a quarter the cost of metering, and would provide the first step in bringing water under public control.
The first thing that the public want to control is what they pay for water and how they pay it. That is what I mean by bringing the water industry back into public control, but that is only a start. We shall achieve our aim only if we have a fundamental review of the regulatory system that puts the public—the consumer—first in the policy that deals with the world's major public need.
We need a system that delivers even-handed pricing across the country. Why should the south-west pay three times more than the rest of the country? We do not pay three times more in London for the health service if there is a flu epidemic—why should the south-west pay three times as much because the area has a longer coastline? It is nonsense.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Jackson: No, I cannot give way, because of the limited time available.
We need a system that opens up the decisions of the water companies to public view and puts an end to the gross pay-offs, dividends and rip-offs of the present system. We do not want the Government's present approach, which is to do nothing. We need action to be taken urgently. The public are making hon. Members aware of that urgency.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I apologise to the Minister for not being present at the start of the debate, when I was unavoidably detained, although I did hear some of his speech.
There is genuine concern among hon. Members about the price of water. While many of us recognise the success of the water companies in winning contracts abroad, they have some responsibility to consumers at home. Of course we appreciate the improvements that have been made, many of which are visible. I always appreciate that those improvements have to be paid for, but more of the costs could come from some of the profits which could be reinvested.
There is nothing wrong in making profits, but it depends on what ultimately happens to them. I know of no other companies involved in producing goods that can expect such a profit on their goods or such a return for their shareholders. A Treasury Minister has had something to say about large dividends. Most companies do not enjoy large dividends, but perhaps water companies do.
Manufacturers in my part of the world cannot keep raising their prices, unlike the water companies. Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer would not pay more for their manufactured goods, because they know that they cannot pass on the price increases to their customers. Water is surely more essential than anything else.
I do not believe that compulsory metering is a good idea. It may be ideal for those who live alone, but it entails grave disadvantages for families.

Mr. Rupert Allason: rose—

Mrs. Peacock: No, I have only a few minutes.
We should look carefully at linking charges for water with council tax banding. That would be much fairer for most people. I am worried about very low-income families who find that they cannot pay their water bills—it is not a matter of "won't pay"; it is a case of "can't pay". If their water is cut off, according to the rules of this country, their accommodation becomes unfit for human habitation. Conservative Governments have spent many years providing much better accommodation for families, so that they can all enjoy these facilities. I do not want to turn the clock back to the last century.
I am sure that the Minister will point out that disconnections are falling. They have certainly fallen in Yorkshire in the past year or so, partly as a result of pressure brought to bear in Parliament, and partly as a result of people's own efforts. It is not possible, however, to disconnect water supplies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to tell us why we are different. If the system works there with no ultimate sanction, why cannot it work in England too?
It is true to say, as Yorkshire Water says, that most families pay up and have their water reconnected within 48 hours. Of course: but many people who cannot pay find the money to pay by going to loan sharks. Then their families end up in greater debt, so that they can have their water reconnected. Perhaps the Minister will say that this is someone else's responsibility, and that some other agency should help to provide the cash—but that is not what happens.
We must be extremely cautious. Water is essential to life. No one can go anywhere else for water—there is no competition. It is not as if we can leave Sainsbury and go down the street to Marks and Spencer. Water has to be piped to people's homes; the water companies have a captive audience. We should all try to help the water

companies to provide the sort of service that we would like all the families in our areas to enjoy, and at a reasonable cost that continues to be affordable.

Mr. David Jamieson: I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight, because, if there is one issue that is important to the south-west, it is the price of water. I am surprised to note that only one Conservative Member from the south-west has been in the Chamber for most of the debate. I should have expected the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to stand up and apologise on behalf of his colleagues who, in 1989, voted for the water privatisation legislation which has caused the high prices in the south-west—

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Jamieson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I thought that Conservative Members would come here this evening and explain why their flagship policy has caused such high prices in my region.
It has been said tonight that water prices have risen around the country, but in the past five years they have doubled in the south-west—and for those who are least able to afford such rises.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Jamieson: The National Consumer Council has clearly stated that the very poorest people in the south-west are spending 12.9 per cent. of their total incomes—or £1 in every £8—on water. We heard not a word about that from Tory Members today.
I can tell Conservative Members why we need clean beaches in the south-west. We need them for the people who live there; we need them for the tourist industry. We need investment in our area so that we can bring in the tourists. The hon. Member for Teignbridge totally failed to explain the fact that under the privatisation system cross-subsidies have gone. That is why he and his colleagues, by voting to privatise water, inflicted high water prices on the people in the south-west.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It had better be a point of order.

Mr. Arnold: Is it in order for an hon. Member to impugn the motives of other hon. Members who were here during this debate—such as my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order.

Mr. Jamieson: I am sorry that time has been wasted by a bogus point of order.
The people of the south-west have been betrayed by the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Teignbridge talked about the tedious irrelevance of the Labour party in the south-west—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Jamieson: Not another bogus point of order, I hope.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that, if an hon. Member refers to another by name, he gives way to him? Were the hon. Gentleman to give way to me, I would have the chance to ask him to explain why he voted against my Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The summer season seems to be well upon us.

Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking about water at all tonight; he is usually associated with a stronger drink than that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman withdrew that remark immediately.

Mr. Jamieson: I do withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I look forward to sharing—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) has resumed his seat. Mr. George Howarth.

Mr. George Howarth: This has been a useful debate. As the Government are not prepared to discuss their water policies in the House of Commons, the Opposition have chosen our last half Supply day—in the event, somewhat less than half a day—to debate the subject of water.
I should like to begin by commenting on the Minister's opening speech—[Interruption.]—if he is willing to listen, that is. I do not think that he was listening even to his own speech half the time. The Minister offered robust support for privatisation and the activities of the water companies, as we might expect. Obviously, he was a member of the governing party, and probably voted for privatisation, in 1989. That being so, he would have to say what he said today.
I have been doing a little research, however, into the other reasons why Conservative Members might support the activities of the water companies. Might it have something to do with the fact that 23 directors of water companies are also directors of companies that donate directly to the Tory party? The Minister stoutly defended Thames Water, and maligned the motives of those who attack that company. Is it possible that the £50,000 that Thames Water gave the Conservative party in 1992, just before the election, had something to do with the strength of support that Conservative Members offered the company today?
I also wonder whether Mr. John Murray Thompson, a director of Thames Water—

Mr. Atkins: Never heard of him.

Mr. Howarth: Well, the hon. Gentleman ought to have. He is also a director of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, which was responsible for donating £70,000 to the Tory party in 1992. The Minister went on stoutly to defend the activities of North West Water. I agree with him that it provides a good service for our constituents—some of its activities are good—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) accuses me of being down in the gutter. Even if I got down there, that would still leave me several feet higher than him.
But let us say a word or two about North West Water and its chairman, Sir Desmond Pitcher. I wonder whether the support of the hon. Gentleman and the Tory party has something to do with the fact that, between 1979 and 1992, Sir Desmond Pitcher, when he was chairman of Littlewoods, donated £160,000 to the Tory party finances. [Interruption.] Conservative Members say, "So what?" I shall tell them. Sir Desmond Pitcher is now getting his richly deserved—from the Tory point of view—reward, with an annual salary of £263,000, bonuses of £75,000 and, no doubt, enormous benefits from his preferential share deals. The list goes on. But the facts mean that we cannot take the Minister's defence of the water companies and their privatisation terribly seriously.
What benefits have consumers had from privatisation? Is the Minister willing, for example, to defend the fact that disconnections have increased by 48 per cent. since privatisation? The Minister defended it by saying that they came in in 1945. Let me tell him that they have increased dramatically, as has the cost to the consumer, and for the very reason that many of those people simply cannot afford to pay their water bills. Is he defending the fact that bills have gone up by 67 per cent? "Well," he says, "that is because we have had to invest all this money in all these improvements that we have been going to carry out." What happened to the promise given at privatisation that all the money for those improvements would be borrowed on the commercial markets? That has not happened at all. The consumers have had to pay for them.
Is the Minister defending, for example, the fact that profits are up by 125 per cent.? Is he willing to defend the fact that, in the same period, the salaries of water company chairmen have gone up by 133 per cent.? No, I do not think so. The truth is that the capital projects, which are good and necessary, have been paid for not by the water companies, but by the consumers. They have not been paid for by commercial borrowing. The money has had to be raised through the consumers.
We are given the impression by the Minister that the consumers are getting a marvellous deal. How much have they paid through charges for all those improvements? The amount was £2.7 billion. Yet, during the same period, dividends, or payments for shareholders, increased by 63 per cent.—a cumulative payment of £2.9 billion. That is more than even the consumers have been expected to pay to fund the improvements. Share values have increased by 99 per cent. since 1990. During the same period, in general, share values on the FT index have gone up by only 39 per cent.
The people who have been hit worst by privatisation are those in our community with the least income. Before privatisation, the average person living on benefit was expected to pay 2.5 per cent. of his or her income on water charges. Since privatisation, that has risen to 3.2 per cent. South West Water has been referred to extensively. Since privatisation, its bills have increased dramatically to £304 a year. Pensioners are being asked to pay 9 per cent. of their income on water charges alone. That is absolutely scandalous. In 1993–94, 12,452 people had their water cut off.
Privatisation has been a rip-off, and it will be a rip-off that will come to haunt the Government. I recommend the motion, which stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Labour bangs on about privatisation generally—so perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of a few facts. It is worth recalling that, under the previous Labour Government, nationalised industries, including the nationalised water industry, made losses—large losses. In 1979, when Labour left office, the losses of the nationalised industries cost taxpayers £35 million each and every week in today's money. That was some £35 million of taxpayers' money being spent on meeting losses, which was therefore not available to invest in the national health service, in schools or for the benefit of pensioners.
By contrast, today, the privatised companies, including the privatised water companies, are paying about £50 million per week into the Exchequer. That is money that can be used in the NHS, for schools and for the benefit of pensioners.
It is worth recalling that in 1976 the previous Labour Government—supported at the time by the Liberals—overnight announced a moratorium on all new construction work by water companies. The previous Labour Government cut their spending on the water industry generally by 30 per cent. and, specifically, cut their capital investment on sewerage by 50 per cent. Labour policies resulted in economic mismanagement and environmental neglect. It is, in part, the Labour party's dereliction of duty that we have had to tackle—and we have done so to the benefit of consumers and the environment.
However, the truth is that the Labour party is in a mess on its policy for water. It cannot bring itself to admit and acknowledge the success of privatisation, yet cannot bring itself to say what it would do differently.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who, at the moment, seems to be acting leader of the Labour party, was quoted last month, in "Water Bulletin", as saying:
There is one area where we might be looking for some new form of public control and that is water … I am neither ruling in nor ruling out a 100 per cent. ownership".
Heavens above, one would have thought that the Labour party should either have the guts to say that it will renationalise the water industry, or not. But, clearly, it is too much to expect the Labour party of designer suits and blow-dry hairstyles to make it clear whether it would be prepared for an incoming Labour Government to spend several billions of pounds of public money buying back shares in the water companies rather than investing in improving environmental protection.
Indeed, only this month out comes yet another Labour party policy document on the environment, produced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is giggling at the moment, with no fewer than seven members of the shadow Cabinet involved. But what is interesting about the document—entitled "Report of the Labour Party Policy Commission on the Environment" —is that at no time did either Opposition Front-Bench spokesman make any reference to it. I am not surprised, because it has 218 paragraphs, and, pathetically, just five of them deal with water.
Does that document make Labour policy on water any clearer? The House must judge, for in a gem of blur-like opaqueness, which now characterises Labour policy, it states:
We will ensure that the actions of all private water companies are under public control.

We look forward in the coming months to hearing from Labour Members just what is meant by that, or, as one Labour Member said, "Democratic public control, comrades." But the truth, I suspect, is that they do not really know themselves.
Labour bangs on about profits. It is a sobering thought that the new model Labour party still finds "profits" a dirty word. But the reality is that water companies need to be profitable to fund capital investment programmes. Indeed, water companies are reinvesting up to two thirds of profits, and all companies are spending more on investment than they are earning in profits. Some, such as Northumbrian and Anglian, are spending up to twice as much. The water companies have been investing £3 billion a year since privatisation to make up for the earlier chronic under-investment when the water industry—

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that the motion and amendments before us specifically mention Scottish issues. Neither the Minister for the Environment and Countryside nor the Under-Secretary of State have chosen to mention Scotland in their speeches. Is it in order for those on the Government Front Bench to ignore the motion that we are debating?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The Chair is not responsible for the content of a speech, save whether it is relevant or not.

Mr. Baldry: I have not heard very much from anyone in the House about Scotland today. But what I did hear was the Labour party banging on about prices and choosing to ignore the fact that investment by the water companies in improving water quality and standards is massive. It works out at about £8 million a day—£5,000 every minute, and, on average, some £960 per household in the five years to 1995. All water services for the average householder in England cost about 55p a day, which is less than the cost of a bottle of fizzy water. That is a reasonable sum to ensure high standards by the water companies.
What is more, customers have more than got their money back through new investment in water services, which over five years averages £960 per household. That is £192 a year, 52p a day, in new investment for every household in the country. Against that background the average charge of 55p a day cannot be said by any fair-minded person to be unreasonable.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 291.

Division No. 298]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bell, Stuart


Armstrong, Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F.


Austin-Walker, John
Benton, Joe


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bermingham, Gerald


Barnes, Harry
Berry, Roger






Betts, Clive
Hardy, Peter


Blair, Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blunkett, David
Harvey, Nick


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Heppell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hodge, Margaret


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chidgey, David
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Illsley, Eric


Church, Judith
Ingram, Adam


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jowell, Tessa


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cox, Tom
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davidson, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Liddell, Helen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Denham,John
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Enright, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McLeish, Henry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McMaster, Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Faulds, Andrew
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galloway, George
Maxton, John


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)





O'Hara, Edward
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Spellar, John


Pendry, Tom
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickthall, Colin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pike, Peter L.
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prescott, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Purchase, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Quin, Ms Joyce
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Giles
Trimble, David


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wallace, James


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walley, Joan


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Wright, Dr Tony


Simpson, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clappison, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Bellingnam, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dunn, Bob


Budgen, Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Burns, Simon
Dykes, Hugh


Burt, Alistair
Elletson, Harold


Butcher, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)






Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evennett, David
Key, Robert


Faber, David
Kilfedder, Sir James


Fabricant, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knapman, Roger


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Fishburn, Dudley
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


French, Douglas
Legg, Barry


Fry, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Gallie, Phil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gardiner, Sir George
Lidington, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Lightbown, David


Garnier, Edward
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gill, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lord, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Luff, Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
MacKay, Andrew


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maclean, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Madel, Sir David


Hague, William
Malone, Gerald


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mans, Keith


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marland, Paul


Hanley, Jeremy
Marlow, Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Harris, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mates, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hawksley, Warren
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hayes, Jerry
Merchant, Piers


Heald, Oliver
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Moate, Sir Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Hendry, Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nelson, Anthony


Horam, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Paice, James


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pickles, Eric





Porter, David (Waveney)
Sweeney, Walter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Sykes, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Richards, Rod
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Riddick, Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trend, Michael


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael



Stem, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Streeter, Gary



Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the water industry in England and Wales on its achievements since privatisation and commends the proposals for restructuring in Scotland which will facilitate the use of private finance; notes the improvements which have been made in environmental standards in particular with regard to the quality of rivers and bathing waters, and the consistently high quality of drinking water; notes that the industry in England and Wales is pressing ahead with a £3 billion a year investment programme which will result in further improvements to the upgrading of water and sewerage systems without placing undue burdens on consumers; and further notes that the privatised industry is successfully using its expertise to gain major contracts overseas, something which could not have been achieved under the policies of the last Labour government.

Wildlife (Conservation)

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move,
That the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
The draft Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations were first laid before the House on 4 July. Hon. Members will realise that the draft order that we are considering today was laid on 13 July and that the original draft was withdrawn because two minor corrections were necessary so that two of the regulations should read as intended. I apologise to hon. Members that an earlier oversight made those small drafting adjustments necessary. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House owes the Minister an apology for being so noisy when he is seeking to speak. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber go quietly and quickly?

Mr. Atkins: I am suitably impressed that the House should apologise to me. That has never happened before and doubtless will never happen again.
The draft regulations to be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 transpose into national law for Great Britain the provisions of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in May 1992.
The House will know that we are fortunate in having a substantial body of existing national legislation for nature conservation. The challenge has been to integrate the new requirements of the directive into what we already have.
The directive was a significant milestone for the conservation of the most endangered habitat types and species in the European Union. The draft regulations demonstrate the Government's determination to give proper effect to its requirements.
As my right hon. Friend told the House in his written answer on 4 July, the regulations consolidate the Government's provision and practices in respect of those sites and species of international importance covered by the directive.

Mr. Tony Banks: Schedule 2 —"European protected species of animals"—specifies that all species of whales are protected. Can the Minister answer a simple question? Under schedule 2, is Norway entitled to apply for a derogation for the killing of whales? Secondly, has it applied for a derogation? If it has or does, do the British Government have the ability to veto it? And will the Government oppose such a derogation and use their veto?

Mr. Atkins: What a good question—I shall endeavour to discover the answer to it and tell the hon. Gentleman when I reply to the debate. It is an important question. The hon. Gentleman has a recognised and considerable interest in these matters and he deserves a proper answer. If I cannot give him one this evening, I shall certainly write to him with the details.
The draft regulations follow the public consultation that took place last autumn. All those who responded have received a letter explaining the contents of the regulations.
A copy has been placed in the Library, together with letters from respondents plus a summary analysis of their contents. A summary of responses to the public consultation on the amendments to the general development order effected by the regulations has also been placed in the Library.
The regulations tell a clear story. In essence, they build on our existing legislative base, which provides the framework for successful nature conservation in this country. Much of the text of the regulations restates the provisions of existing law, modified as appropriate, to ensure that the terms of the directive are transposed. The regulations provide for the selection and designation of sites that will become special areas of conservation—SACs—as required by the directive. They also give effect to the requirement that by June 1995 the Government must submit a proposed site list to the European Commission.
The Government are receiving advice from the nature conservation agencies, through the joint nature conservation committee, on their site proposals based on the directive's scientific criteria. We shall consider that advice and publish a list of sites for consultation before the end of the year. The Government are committed to preliminary consultation with all owners and occupiers and other affected interests on the sites before submission to the Commission takes place. Further full and detailed discussions about the management and definition of sites will also take place before the Community list is agreed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I appreciate that the Minister is going through matters logically. What, in his and the Department's view, is likely to be the major effect of this legislation as opposed to pre-existing legislation, and specifically is not the weakness of it the fact that the limitation to owners and occupiers' liability will remain a limitation under the new proposals, despite the fact that it is one of the great loopholes of the present legislation?

Mr. Atkins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Having taken advice, we very much believe that voluntary management and involvement with owners and occupiers of sites is a better way of doing things than legislating fiercely. As the hon. Gentleman might be aware, we have the reserve right to impose a compulsory purchase order where necessary, but that is the nuclear option and not something that we want to use. However, we are required to do that under the directive and that is what we will do if necessary. Experience suggests that voluntary arrangements and agreements are a much better way of doing things.

Mr. Tom King: I very much endorse what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, I have a number of sites of special scientific interest in my constituency. A letter that I received today from the National Farmers Union expresses concern that the consultation procedures will not be as good under the European proposals as they have been under the previous arrangements. I urge the fullest consultation with owners and farmers to make a success of the proposals, which can happen if there is genuine co-operation.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am aware of his constituency interest in these matters. We have only belatedly heard from the NFU and the Country Landowners Association, but I assure my right hon. Friend


that we will ensure that consultation is proper and thorough. Quite frankly, that is the only way that the procedure will work. He was right to say that, if we make it work properly, the benefits will be substantial.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) took the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through the House. They will recall that during its Committee stage they said, understandably, that consultation was highly desirable. The Minister now says that it must be thorough. That involves staff. Quite often, the reason given for delay was that there was not sufficient staff either in the Department or in the Scottish Office. Are the Government sure that they now have sufficient staff to carry out a thorough consultation, about which I am sure the Minister is sincere, because that takes a very long time and many, many staff hours?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. I cannot give him a direct answer but I am satisfied that, as matters stand, we have the necessary staff. We are not lagging behind on this matter, despite the little hiccup in tabling the regulations. That was because we wanted to get them right. We are doing well in comparison with other members of the European Union and it is our intention that that remains so. If the concern the hon. Gentleman raises turns out to be the case, I shall be as worried as he is and I will have to take the necessary action.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Regulation 49 refers to a project continuing if there is an overriding public interest and states that that interest
may be of a social or economic nature.
My constituency has the chance of an industrial development involving the creation of 1,500 new jobs on an enterprise zone site which, unfortunately, impinges marginally on a site of special scientific interest. Can the Minister provide me with a definition—if not this evening, at some future date—of "economic nature"?

Mr. Atkins: I hear sotto voce from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who speaks on these matters for the Scottish Office, that he is aware of the case. If the hon. Gentleman would care to approach him, he will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details and perhaps they can then be discussed in the usual way.
The regulations provide for the establishment of a register of European sites, which will be open to public inspection. The entry of a site on the register will be notified to owners, occupiers, local authorities and any other interested bodies which the Secretary of State may direct. The register will be the formal means to record the sites that will be subject to the protection provisions in the regulations.
A cornerstone provision of the regulations is the introduction of new duties on Ministers and the nature conservation agencies to exercise their functions in order to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. All Ministers and the nature conservation agencies must use such of the provisions in existing nature conservation

legislation and in these regulations as may be necessary to secure the protection of sites and species as required by the directive.
All Government and public bodies are given a new duty to have regard to the directive's requirements in the exercise of their functions. The Government remain committed to the voluntary principle of land management and it is expected that where management is necessary most of the conservation needs of designated sites will be delivered through voluntary management arrangements negotiated between owners and occupiers and the nature conservation agencies.
The regulations also allow for the making of byelaws to control third-party activities and will enable the existing powers of compulsory purchase in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to be used if necessary, as I said earlier, as the only means of safeguarding the conservation value of the land.
The regulations introduce a highly significant new framework for the conservation of European sites in the marine environment. All statutory bodies with functions relevant to marine conservation must, under a new duty, exercise their functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. Identified relevant authorities such as sea fisheries committees, harbour authorities and local authorities are further empowered to join with one another in drawing up schemes of management for those sites.
Consistent with the Government's declared approach to the inter-agency management of the coastal zone, the Government expect that, for the most part, those authorities will work together voluntarily to establish such schemes founded on the advice that the nature conservation agencies are under a duty to provide. However, under the regulations Ministers may give directions to those bodies in respect of the establishment of a scheme of management, and will do so at any time if it seems necessary to secure the conservation of a site.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced, we wish to bring a number of additional controls relating to consents and permissions within the specific scope of the directive. They will be contained in further draft regulations to be laid before the House in due course. I believe that the regulations represent a thorough implementation package to comply with the requirements of the habitats directive, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. George Howarth: Although the directive may be a little overdue—for technical reasons which have been explained—we give it what must, sadly, be a qualified welcome. We believe that an opportunity has been missed: primary legislation would have been preferable to secondary legislation, especially in overcoming the difficulties of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
I am very concerned about the lack of information in the public domain about sites of special scientific interest. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that, some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) tried to obtain detailed information about the damage being done to such sites by tabling written questions. I shall not bore the House with the arcane procedures that proved necessary; suffice it to say


that it eventually proved impossible to table questions that could be answered. Either blocking answers were in place, or no Minister appeared competent to reply.
We then consulted English Nature, which refused to give us a list of damaged sites on the ground that the National Audit Office had all the information. The NAO said that it could not provide the information. Eventually it published a report, which gave no specific details; it provided only statistics, with one or two examples thrown in. I hope that at some point the Minister will consider the great black hole that needs to be filled: I know that a vast amount of data is involved, but it should be brought into the public domain so that Members of Parliament can gain access to detailed information about not only the incidence of damage but what it adds up to, and the difficulties that have been encountered.

Mr. Atkins: Neither my Department nor I intend to hide such information, which is generally available. It might be useful for us to discuss the matter after the debate, through the usual channels, to establish whether there are ways of providing the information the hon. Gentleman wants. It may be a simple process of bringing all the information together, rather than avoiding disclosure. That should not be particularly difficult. I will check, if it will help.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister. I should be even more grateful if he would go a step further, and give me a guarantee that he will find some way of bringing the information into the public domain.

Mr. Atkins: I never give absolute guarantees, but I will do my best.

Mr. Howarth: That is fair enough, although none of our best is ever good enough.
The NAO report, published earlier this year, stated that, since 1987, 800 reports of damage to sites of special scientific interest had been made. None of us can be complacent about such a serious matter, and I hope that the Government are not complacent. Other statistics from the 1990 countryside survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment itself revealed that there had been a decrease in the bio-diversity of many sites over the preceding 10 years. Again, there is no room for complacency.
The most notorious examples are the St. Catherine hill SSSI, north of Twyford down, and the Itchen valley/Winchester meadows SSSI, south of Twyford down. Tragically, roads have been driven through both. Sir William Wilkinson, the former chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, has said:
Good landowners protect SSSIs but bad boys get away with murder. The most recent example that springs to mind was Twyford Down where the agent of destruction was the Government.
I note that the Government are not currently represented by the Minister responsible.
Many of the sites involved provide habitats for various flora and fauna—birds, for instance. Over the past 20 years, the population of seven species of common farmland bird has declined by more than 50 per cent. According to a study conducted by the British Trust for Ornithology—

Mr. Elliot Morley: A fine organisation.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed it is. According to that study, between 1969 and 1991 the tree sparrow population fell by 80 per cent., the corn bunting population by 76 per cent., the grey partridge population by 73 per cent., the turtle dove population by 72 per cent., the reed bunting population by 50 per cent., the linnet population by 56 per cent. and the skylark population by 54 per cent. That is very worrying.
There is also legitimate concern about peatlands. Perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of whether he intends such sites to be included among the proposed special areas of conservation. There is already ample evidence to suggest that natural peat bogs—there is one in my constituency—are being routinely and systematically damaged or threatened by developments of one kind or another. It is instructive to note that the threat is not posed only by housing developments and the like; in my constituency, an unusual combination—the manager of Liverpool football club, a nightclub owner and a solicitor—

Mr. Gary Streeter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman had better wait until the end of the sentence before saying "Hear, hear".

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Liverpool football club is already an endangered species.

Mr. Howarth: I presume that my hon. Friend does not go to Cardiff City matches too often.
Those three people propose not to build a housing development, but to convert the peat bog in my constituency to a landfill site. Hon. Members may ask what a nightclub owner, the manager of Liverpool football club and a solicitor are doing in such a business; I have asked that question myself, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. It clearly does not bode well for the future of the peat bog.
Other important habitats—such as dry heathlands, which are a natural habitat for rare and threatened species of plant life, birds and butterflies—are equally threatened, and in some instances are already being undermined by inappropriate use. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take into account the importance of such sites—both existing SSSIs and other important habitats—undertake a review and, where necessary, revoke planning consents that threaten their survival? If we are serious, we must consider not only sites that have not yet been damaged but sites that might be damaged, or might be subject to planning consents that would threaten the survival of wildlife.
The Minister might also tell us how he proposes to achieve favourable conservation status for annexe 2 species such as the shoredock plant and the marsh fritillary butterfly. He may not lie awake thinking about such matters, but they are important to many people who are concerned about the survival of those species. It is clear that unless such habitats are managed by specialists and with proper sensitivity, there is a real danger that they could disappear altogether.
I will deal now with management agreements and nature conservation orders. They are, after all, the most significant cause of long-term damage to SSSIs and, as the NAO report made clear, they often result in neglect and mismanagement. The Government are proposing a revised


form of management agreements to encourage landowners to manage their land. However, that is effective only when the land owner is willing to enter into an agreement. If he will not accept responsibility, which has happened in many cases, the relevant statutory agency can apply to the Secretary of State for a special nature conservation order.
However, there are serious problems when a dispute arises. The Government have the option of acquiring the land by a compulsory purchase order. Clearly, that is something that we support as far as it goes, but the evidence pertaining to CPOs in this respect does not give me any reason—and should not give the House any reason —necessarily to believe that that is the right answer unless it is differently in future.
The CPO scheme already exists in legislation and is carried out by statutory agencies, but the bureaucracy and the limited resources available for their administration often make it unworkable. I am aware of only one site on which a CPO has been served, and that is Westhay moor in Somerset. There were serious problems, but it still took three years for the dispute to be settled and for the CPO to go through. Clearly, that is unsatisfactory, and we need assurances that the CPO system as it is to apply will be an improvement. The regulations offer little reassurance that SACs will be protected when disputes occur. In the past, the Government have often failed to introduce immediate and effective measures.
Problems are anticipated in Scotland where the use of a CPO as a fallback measure could be costly and the purchase of a large estate such as Mar lodge would require several times more than the annual budget for Scottish Natural Heritage. I should be grateful if the Minister will say something about available resources because it is clear that often they do not match the job that needs to be done.
I should also like some information about how the Government intend to deal with trouble spots. I have in mind, for example, the case of an SSSI and a proposed motorway scheme. How does the Minister see disputes being resolved in such trouble spots within the new SAC framework? There is surely a strong case for undertaking a thorough review of all such sites, including and perhaps especially those subject to unsuitable developments. The whole question needs to be examined closely through the planning system, and I should welcome more information on it in the wind-up speech.
Although I welcome the fact that the Government are to consult on such sites, it is very important that the consultation exercise should go as wide as possible and include not only the owners of sites but non-governmental organisations which have a legitimate interest in them. I hope that the exercise will not be confined to the specific selection of sites but will cover the criteria to be used at the stage prior to their selection because it is important that such issues are considered in advance of selection.
I shall deal next with marine and coastal issues. In a parliamentary answer on 11 November 1992, the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside said that his Department would ensure that
the proposals for implementation of the marine conservation aspects of the habitat directives fully meet the directive's requirements."—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 791.]
Measures for marine conservation lag behind those for

conservation on land. The legislation gives specific powers through byelaws to maintain principle of special areas of conservation. The nature conservation agencies can use those powers inside and outside SACs but not in the case of marine sites. The regulations state that the competent authorities will have
regard to the requirements of the Directive".
However, it is not clear whether that is limited to SACs. It is essential to promote good practice inside and outside protected areas given the highly mobile nature of the marine environment.
The regulations do not give the Secretary of State for the Environment a lead role in directions concerning SACs. That could lead to conflict, confusion and delay in the management of SACs. Priorities for fisheries, transport, mineral extraction and other activities can be in serious conflict with nature conservation objectives. The Secretary of State for the Environment already has a lead role in the case terrestrial protected areas under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to assist in the conservation of SSSIs. The same should be true for marine SACs. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that issue will be considered seriously?

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Has my hon. Friend considered what amounts to deregulation in the dredging of aggregates, which has altered the foreshore line of rivers at the expense of the environment and bird life? Does he agree that it should be properly controlled and regulated?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend probably has a greater knowledge than any other hon. Member of the River Mersey, on which he worked for many years. I believe that there is also a problem with the River Severn, but his point was well made and I sympathise strongly. That leads me neatly to my final point, which relates to barrages—especially those proposed in south Wales—and their possible effect on the migratory runs of salmon and sea trout.
Apparently, there are seven species of migratory fish in the rivers of south Wales, all of which are subject to barrage developments or proposals. The nature of their life cycle, which involves between two and 12 passages through the estuaries, makes them extremely vulnerable to such developments. Barrage developments create obstructions to the passage of migratory fish, as is well known, and an effective fish passage is crucial to the future of fish stocks.
The River Usk, which is the subject of one such proposal, contains the rare and high conservation status twaite shad, lamprey and allis shad. These species are considered to be in general decline. The National Rivers Authority for Wales estimates that the cost of monitoring and mitigating the adverse impact of developments on the River Usk would be considerable. The development on the River Taff would require the purchase and release of hatchery-reared salmon smolt and it is estimated that 60,000 smolts a year would be required at a cost of more than £1 a smolt. There are clearly a number of issues to be dealt with.

Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so fascinating about the conflict between barrage developments and the migratory fish species in south Wales which he has listed is that it is only at the end of south Wales's heavy industrialisation phase that the sea


trout, or the sewin as we call them, and salmon have returned to our rivers? At the very time when salmon and sea trout are returning to the Tawe, the Taff and other rivers, people for some reason decide to erect barrages, thereby preventing with physical concrete obstacles what pollution and the coalfields have prevented for the past 200 years.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. His knowledge of south Wales is almost unparalleled, and few if any of the things in the rivers or on the ground escape his eagle-eyed attention. However, to deal with his comments from a conservation point of view, I was lucky enough once to catch a sewin. It is quite a considerable fish to catch. So, it is important not only in conservation terms for its own sake, but because there are sporting problems.

Mr. Morgan: They taste very nice, as well.

Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend said, they taste nice as well.
To return to the point at which I started, while we feel that this is a missed opportunity and that there is a case, which we regret has not been taken up by the Government, for primary legislation, we nevertheless welcome the directive, partial though it is, and we shall not be dividing the House on it.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the measure as a flexible and sensible approach to conservation in this country. I have 10 points which I would like to put briefly to the Minister on these highly complicated regulations. I regret to say to the Minister that my points are inevitably technical and, therefore, I do not necessarily expect him be able to respond to them fully this evening. Perhaps, he may be able to respond to me in due course. I also apologise for putting the points to him rather late in the day. I appreciate that he would have preferred more notice.
First, regulation 2 defines the occupier for purposes of part III—protection of species—but not for the purposes of part II; the section on conservation of natural habitat. Especially in the context of regulation 13—notice to landowners, relevant authorities et cetera—and regulation 16, it is not clear whether "occupier" includes those having rights of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking of the game or fish. That is, of course, important because those with sporting interests have an interest in preserving the species, as defined in part III.
Indeed, it is significant that the European Commission and the European Parliament have confirmed the part played by country sports in conservation. A resolution specifically dealing with the protection of wild birds, initiated by Mr. Jean Baffin, a French Green party Member of the European Parliament, which was adopted at the beginning of February, acknowledged that, if sporting activities are
practised sustainably in accordance with the principle of wise use of renewable natural resources",
sportsmen
can make a valuable contribution to habitat conservation, which is a key feature of many species conservation strategies.
Commissioner Padraig Flynn, no less, said:
the deterioration and destruction of habitats pose more serious threats to the survival of wild birds in Europe than 'hunting' as such.

It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could confirm that, for the purposes of part II of the regulation, the occupier also includes those having sporting rights. It may be necessary to ask the owner or occupier who else has sporting rights over his lands and, perhaps, those with that interest could be subsequently notified.
Secondly, regulation 7 provides for the Secretary of State to draw up a list of sites eligible for identification of sites of community importance—so-called SCIs. There is no indication that there will be any consultation with the owners and occupiers of such sites before the list is sent to the European Commission on or before 5 June 1995. The Commission and the Government will adopt a final list by, at the latest, June 1988. Finally, the designated special areas of conservation, the so-called SACs, have to be designated by June 2004.
If the Minister and his Department are to supply that list to the European Commission by June 1995, time is ticking on if they are to have the full consultation for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) called in his intervention. It would be necessary to begin that consultation process pretty well straight away. So, can the Minister explain the Government's intention on the nature, extent and timing of the consultation with owners and occupiers over the preparation of the list of potential SCIs? It would also be helpful if a list of SCIs were not published until full consultation had been carried out. Once such things go on a list, they have a habit of staying on that list, even if turns out that, as a result of the consultation process, they should be not be on the list at all.
Thirdly, article 4(2) of the directive provides that SCIs shall be adopted not only on the basis of the criteria set out in annex III, but on the framework of five biogeographical regions referred to in article 1(c)(iii). SCIs in the UK will need to be selected in the framework of the Atlantic biogeographical region. That is also important because it would be folly if we were to designate far more sites which have a Atlantic ecosystem, only to find that the French and the Irish were designating very few sites and, indeed, on those sites which were designated, there was not the same compliance ratio as there would undoubtedly be in this country under my hon. Friend's Department.
Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what steps are to be taken to ensure that the Government will include on the list of potential SCIs only so many sites as are appropriate, and no more, in the context of the Atlantic region and in the light of the performance of other member states. That would also give us the opportunity to ascertain how closely our compliance was compared with that of other EC countries.
Fourthly, in paragraph 2.2.4 of their earlier consultation paper, the Government stated that special areas of conservation, so-called SACs, will have already been notified as SSSIs, to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) referred. The regulations make no mention of that commitment. Should the Government consider in any circumstances the designation of a land-based SAC, or include land outside an existing SSSI within a SAC, without first giving the owners and occupiers involved an opportunity to make representations to the appropriate nature conservation agency through the SSSI notification process? It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm their intention regarding the relationship between SSSIs and land-based SACs.
Fifthly, management agreements offer an important mechanism for developing an effective partnership


between landowners and nature conservation agencies to manage, conserve, restore and protect European sites and land adjacent to them. That voluntary nature of conforming with the regulations has already been mentioned in the debate by a number of hon. Members. Indeed, in his opening remarks, the Minister indicated its importance by saying that the compulsory purchase procedure would be used only in "nuclear deterrent circumstances" or some words similar to that. He has acknowledged the voluntary nature, which is absolutely essential if all those involved, particularly those who have to manage the sites, are to do that effectively.
The Government should recognise that a major increase in the real level of resources available to the major nature conservation agencies will be essential if our international, national, regional and local conservation objectives are to be achieved. For example, many of the land management systems which have produced internationally important wildlife habitats such as lowland heath are no longer economical. Substantial financial support may be needed if landowners are to continue to operate uneconomic farming systems or to restore such systems where they have been lost for nature conservation purposes.
I very much welcome the schemes which the Government have already introduced, such as the environmentally sensitive areas—I have two such areas in my constituency, the upper Thames tributaries and the Cotswold hills—the countryside stewardship scheme, which is operated so successfully by my hon. Friend's Department and, the Tir Cymen scheme which operates in Wales. I am sorry that my Welsh is not as good as it should be and I apologise to all Welshmen present if my pronunciation is not correct.

Mr. Morgan: Nought out of 10.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene and tell me how it should be pronounced.

Mr. Morgan: It should be Tir Cymen. With a little bit of effort, the hon. Gentleman could do a little better.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I will try again. Is it Tir Cymen? No doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. No doubt all in Wales will be cheering at the success of this scheme and of the habitat scheme.
All these schemes have an important role to play in European sites, as elsewhere. I mention here the Land Drainage Bill which I promoted and which went through all its stages two Fridays ago. It will give local authorities and internal land drainage boards an obligation to consider environmental aspects before major drainage schemes are carried out. That is a major step forward, because we have lost 50 per cent. of all our wetland areas since the war. I drained 25 acres of my own wetland under a very high grant regime in the 1970s. Having found that the land has never been economic, I rather wish that I had never done it. If my Bill had been in place then, I would not have been allowed to drain that land and we should all have been the richer culturally and environmentally as a result.
It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could give a high priority to management agreements at European sites while accepting that the resources required for that purpose should not be made available at the expense of

other SSSIs or of other schemes that secure conservation benefits in the wider countryside. Having set up the SSSI regime, it would be a tragedy if we found that the European sites competed for the existing resources and that compliance with the existing SSSIs was weakened as a result. I hope that my hon. Friend can give us some assurance in that respect.
It would also be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm that no SAC will be designated until the resources required to sustain the necessary positive management of the SAC have been secured. What would be the point in us designating an area and then finding that we did not have the resources necessary to ensure that the area was managed according to the regulations?
Sixthly, regulation 18 provides for any existing notification of operations likely to damage an SSSI to be amended, for the purposes of the directive, at any time. The regulation provides for owners and occupiers to be notified of such amendments, but not for consultation with them. Surely owners and occupiers should have an opportunity to make representations to the nature conservation agencies regarding any amendments that the Minister may make as they already have under the existing SSSI regime. That surely complies with the rules of natural justice. Surely anyone should be able to make representations regarding a change in designation before that designation is made.
I am also concerned that regulation 18(3) leaves nature conservation agencies to decide which owners or occupiers should be notified of amendments. In view of the penalties likely to face owners and occupiers who damage protected sites without reasonable excuse, surely it is unreasonable for the agencies to have that discretion. It would be helpful for the Minister to outline what opportunities, if any, will be available to the owners and occupiers to question the decision to amend the list of potentially damaging operations in respect of the European site. It would also be helpful if the Minister could explain why it has been decided to give the nature conservation agencies the discretion to decide which owners and occupiers they should notify of the amendments in any one case.
It would be helpful if the Minister could lay out the parameters for how far outside the designated site—[Interruption.] I can see my hon. Friend looking at his watch. I am a long way through the points that I must make to him. It would be helpful if we could have some idea of how far outside the designated site owners and occupiers will be notified.
Seventhly, regulations 50 to 59, to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has already referred, provide for extant planning permissions that may affect European sites to be reviewed. It is important that compensation is payable to anybody holding such permission which is subsequently modified, discontinued or revoked. I believe that such a provision is contained in regulations 50 to 59, but I know from reading the regulations that they are extremely complicated. It would be helpful to have the Minister's clarification on this point.
I have in mind the following example. Let us suppose that a quarry was operating and that it was then decided to designate it as a SAC. The quarry might have an existing planning permission. As a result of the designation, its operations might be curtailed or modified in some way. Would the quarry owner receive compensation? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.
Eighthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am at the eighth out of 10 points, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be glad to know. I am particularly concerned—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no power to curtail anybody's speech tonight, beyond the final one. I remind the hon. Gentleman and all others that the whole debate has to be contained within an hour and a half.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have come to my eighth point out of 10 so I shall be fairly brief in concluding my speech.
Eighthly, I am particularly concerned that it appears that some permitted development works by farmers and others could now be disallowed without compensation. That could happen if it were decided under the regulations that planning permission was needed for such works and it was then refused. As the Minister is aware, there are certain permitted development rights under existing planning legislation which can be carried out without planning permission, such as the erection of certain farm buildings, although they have to be notified to the local authority. Under the current system, where permitted development rights may be withdrawn under an article 4 direction, compensation is payable. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why compensation is not to be offered where permitted development rights are withdrawn under the regulations.
Ninthly, I understand that the provisions relating to planning permission and permitted development in part IV of the regulations apply to any development affecting European sites, whether or not the development lies within their boundaries. I am concerned that that could lead to quite innocuous developments being subject to further consultation and control when they are likely neither significantly nor adversely to affect the European site. One can envisage an immediately adjoining or a not-so- immediately adjoining landowner wishing to carry out a development. He carries it out in all innocence under the existing planning regulations only to be told at some time in the future that he comes within the scope of the regulations. We owe it to all those who may be affected by the regulations to ensure that they are widely publicised in a form that everyone can understand. I am sure that no one will thereby fall foul of them.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how local planning authorities will distinguish between innocuous proposals and those likely to have significantly adverse effects. It would also be helpful if the Minister would agree to review his advice to local authorities on this matter and the regulations themselves if local authorities appear in practice to take an unnecessarily interfering approach to development proposals outside European sites. It is only a matter of human justice that those who live some distance from the site should be well appraised of any possible effects that it might have on their activities.
Tenthly—and finally, the Minister will be glad to know—article 2(3) of the directive requires that
Measures taken pursuant to this directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.
That is fundamental to a rural area such as mine. The requirement does not appear in the regulations although —the Minister may be able to give me clarification on this —it may be that regulation 3(2), which gives the Secretary of State powers, but not the ability to issue directions,

covers the point. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Government, nature conservation agencies and local authorities will heed that fundamental requirement in all their actions relating to the directive.
I apologise to the House for that rather long, technical tirade. The regulations are highly technical. They will have a fundamental and long-lasting effect in the conservation of flora and fauna. I welcome that most wholeheartedly. Equally, I ask the Minister to give clarification on the 10 points that I have raised this evening.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Can the Minister tell us exactly how the exclusions will work? We all welcome the codification of the regulations in so far as they bring up to date the European habitats directive, although they are a month late and there are errors in their production, and so on. However, in at least one respect, they weaken the existing nature conservation provisions because of the ease of exclusion. I do not wish to appear to be spoiling the party tonight, but these are important issues as regards exactly how the exclusions will work.
I am extremely puzzled as to how the regulations are meant to apply and whether one can wriggle out of the protection measures through what one might call Henry VIII powers. In other words, if the Secretary of Slate decides that, in spite of the protection that has been conferred, he wants a development to take place—such as Twyford down or the Cardiff bay barrage—he can then just say that he has decided that there are reasons of an overriding public interest nature for developing. He can thereby reduce or eliminate altogether the nature conservation interest in a marsh, fen or hill, or in a wetland as was the case in the barrage that I mentioned.
The problem is that we always imagine, when we pass legislation of this type, that it confers real protection. It looks like a bulky document of 70 or 80 pages, it seems to repeat the words "nature conservation interest" and it appears to legislate to protect that interest. However, when one looks at the details, one sees that it is remarkably easy to wriggle out of the obligations if the Secretary of State feels like it. At other times, it seems easy when the European Commission feels like it.
It is difficult for us to accept that this is a wonderful piece of legislation when there are overriding Henry VIII powers to say that the nature conservation interest is secondary in a particular site to the socio-economic or other interests. Who decides whether it is really an overriding interest? Is it the Secretary of State or the European Commission? It is not clear at all.
Regulation 24(6) shows the major weakness of the habitats directive compared with the wild birds directive. It states:
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type or a priority species the reasons referred to in paragraph (5) must be either … reasons relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment".
That was the element that was there before, via the wild birds directive. However, the new element is introduced in the statement that other reasons may be considered
which in the opinion of the European Commission are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
How do we know what the European Commission will judge as being imperative reasons of overriding public interest? What are the criteria that it will use? Will it be jobs, or simply an opinion, which will have to be


considered before it is decided that a project is overriding? Must it be a direct employer, such as a new steelworks or a chemical plant where so many thousands will be employed? Will it be a piece of infrastructure such as a road, or a cosmetic piece of infrastructure such as the barrage on the Usk or at Cardiff bay, although they are not direct employers?
How do we decide what is really an overriding interest? What is to guide the European Commission? We do not know. In certain cases, it appears to be the European Commission that decides—other areas of exclusion are mentioned in regulation 48—while in regulation 49, it appears to be the Secretary of State.
The document states that the Commission will have the last word in deciding whether to override the provisions of the legislation, so the protection will, all of a sudden, disappear. It says:
the competent authority may agree to the plan or project notwithstanding a negative assessment of the implications for the site
That is negative in nature conservation terms. It continues that that may take place if there are
other reasons which in the opinion of the European Commission are imperative reasons of overriding public interest".
However, the document continues:
The Secretary of State may thereupon, if he thinks fit, seek the opinion of the Commission; and if he does so, he shall upon receiving the Commission's opinion transmit it to the authority.
Who has the last word? Is it the Secretary of State or the European Commission, and on what do they base it? They must receive advice from the local authority nature conservation body. How do they weigh it? Do they simply say that they like a particular economic or social project and decide that it overrides the nature conservation interest? That is a key area where the legislation weakens the nature conservation protection that is available today.
We should not delude ourselves and say that this is a great piece of legislation that in all cases strengthens the nature conservation interest. In certain areas, it puts Henry VIII powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and the collective college of cardinals of the European Commission. Those powers are not necessarily in the hands of the Environment Commissioners, because they are a mixed bag and the present one is certainly not interested in the environment at all. They appear to have the last word and they can say that a project of a socio-economic character that they judge to be of overriding public interest is more important than the inherent nature conservation interest in the site. The site will then go for economic development. Perhaps there are good reasons for doing that, but we must know in the legislation how they are to judge it.
In areas such as south Wales, that is of enormous controversy at the moment. That is because of the way in which the Cardiff bay barrage was handled, the way the Usk barrage proposal is supposed to be handled and the disaster that has already occurred at Tawe barrage. The last has been in place for only two years, but the National Rivers Authority has found serious de-oxygenation and a loss of the ability of migratory fish—the great glory of the Welsh river environment—to find gaps in the fish pass.
Very rare migratory species such as the allis shad and the twaite shad, which were mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), have a serious difficulty for fish in not being good swimmers. A

couple of lengths of the baths and they are knackered, one might say. That is a considerable problem for a fish, particularly when it is having to surmount a fish pass. That also applies to salmon, which are extremely strong swimmers. However, there has been a drop in the ability of salmon to move up the estuary to their spawning grounds at the Tawe barrage.
There are also problems for sea trout which, although they are not a protected species, have to surpass a barrage such as Tawe and the proposed barrages on the Taff Ely and the Usk. They might have to surmount such a barrage up to 12 times in their life cycle, while a salmon may have to do so only two or three times. That is a serious problem, and the conservation interest in such an area can be overridden on the say-so of the Secretary of State without his having to publish the correspondence.
I have been pressing the Secretary of State for a long time to publish his correspondence with the Environment Commissioners on how Ministers came to their decisions on the Cardiff bay barrage and how those decisions fitted in with the wild birds directive or the habitats directive. However, I cannot get it. Ministers say that the correspondence is confidential. If so, that is a Henry VIII power. The Secretary of State just decides that he feels like it, and does not have to prove that there is an overriding or socio-economic case for doing so. That may then eliminate the nature conservation interest.
The Secretary of State may just say that he wants to override the nature conservation interests, and he has the power to do it. He does not have to come to the House to explain and he does not have to publish his correspondence with the European Commissioner. I ask the Minister seriously to consider how to expose to public view the reasoning behind the overrides or exclusions in areas where the decision weakens the nature conservation protection. Will he at least place in the Library the exchanges of correspondence which he has with the Environment Commissioner? We would then know why he was doing something, and whether there was or was not an objection from the European Commission and from nature conservation bodies.
It would be of enormous benefit to the House if the Minister promised to publish any correspondence of the type that he has not been willing to publish on the Cardiff bay barrage. We would know whether there was any reasoning behind a decision, or whether it was a brutal use of Henry VIII powers of the kind which the spirit of the regulations is completely against.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to this important debate. As one would expect of someone who was raised on a dairy farm in Devon and who now represents a seat that is flanked to the west by Cornwall, to the north by the delights of Dartmoor, to the south by Plymouth Sound and to the east by the rolling pastures of the South Hams, I have a deep and abiding love of the countryside. I recognise that there are real threats to the wild fauna and flora which must to be protected.
I welcome the important measure which we are debating this evening as an important further plank in the Government's attempts to introduce that protection. I also welcome the fact that the measure is balanced. Surely balance must be the watchword in all environmental issues


—the balance between competing interests and between the need to develop economically, to farm and to enjoy the countryside and the vital need to preserve our natural heritage, because once it is gone, it is gone for ever.
I welcome the Government's proposals for consulting widely on the regulations. Surely it is important to take into account the views of farmers, landowners and groups that regularly use our countryside, on such an important measure.
The regulations give effect, in United Kingdom law, to the European Union natural habitats directive of 1992. As one who feels that many issues are best dealt with by national Governments and not at a European level, and that subsidiarity is such an important notion, I should be the first to admit that measures to protect the environment from destruction and waste, and anti-pollution measures, are the exceptions. They are best dealt with at European level.
It is important that the measure is being introduced on a Europe-wide basis, not merely to protect the countryside and fauna and flora throughout Europe, but to ensure that there is, as far as possible, that famous level playing field for industry and taxpayers in each European country.
One of the many matters on which I join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who spoke so creditably, is the need for an assurance from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside that similar measures will be enforced effectively throughout Europe. We know that our civil servants will vigorously enforce these protective measures. Can we have an assurance that the measures will be enforced adequately in Greece, Portugal and other European countries, so that a level playing field is introduced?

Mr. Michael Bates: My hon. Friend has a reputation for a strong interest in this issue. On applying the rules throughout the Community, clearly Britain has a more concentrated industrial area and less land mass is available for conservation areas than in France or Spain, for example. Is it not important that EC directives are applied fairly according to the geographical circumstances of member states?

Mr. Streeter: That is a valid point and my hon. Friend is right. The regulations have that measure of balance and take into account the geography of the United Kingdom.
I congratulate the Government on their record on environmental issues. Our Prime Minister took such a strong lead at the Rio conference two years ago. The truth is that many people talk about the environment, but we are the party that introduces environment protection measures. We understand that, to be successful, environment protection must be balanced and must take into account the interests of land users and other groups.
The measure aims to promote biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna, and it is very welcome. I have some specific questions, however, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with, either in his reply or at some other stage. Schedule 2 of the regulations contains a list of protected species of animal, for example, the bat and the dormouse. That is extremely sensible. I anticipate pressure, however, in years to come to increase the list of protected species, for example, to include foxes and deer.
I want my hon. Friend's assurance that those who want to ban hunting in this country will not be able to use the

measure to introduce, through the back door, legislation op which the people have firmly closed the front door. 'The best guardians of the countryside are people who enjoy the countryside and country and field sports. People who participate in hunting are a fine example. So often those who purport to care about animals forget to take nature as it really is. Nature is cruel.
The wildcat is one of the species protected in schedule 2. My family lives just outside Plympton in Devon and we are the proud owners of two cats, one of which might be described as a wildcat. Since we moved house recently, the cat regularly brings into the house mice, voles and rabbits and eats them before our very eyes. Nature is cruel and people who want to ban hunting should recognise that fact. I want an assurance that schedule 2 of the regulations cannot be used to ban hunting through the back door.
What will happen if protected species become pests to landowners, farmers and householders? Bats are in the list of protected species. We have bats in the roof of our house and we are stuck with them. Should those bats become a nuisance to us and to our neighbours, what advice can my hon. Friend the Minister give? I hope that the Government have thought the matter through. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may have differing views from the hon. Member who has the Floor, but it is a part of the tradition of the House that those who are expressing their views are given a fair hearing, however unpopular those views might be with others.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you have the power that is given to Madam Speaker under the Mental Health Acts to section a Member, as it is quite clear that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has gone completely loopy?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I should not want such a power—it would be a great temptation.

Mr. Streeter: As one who has listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in the past two years, I must point out that people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.
I have another question for my hon. Friend the Minister. What will happen if protected species of flora become a pest to landowners? The species of ragwort that is fatal to horses is greatly threatened in some areas. What will happen if it becomes protected, yet its existence is a real nuisance to wildlife?
On compliance costs, I mentioned the importance of balance. The regulations take into account the fact that they will have an impact on businesses. For environment protection to be sustainable, it must be affordable. On regulations 11 and 12, what proposals do the Government have for compensating businesses, should the regulations have an unfavourable impact on them?
Finally, I remember a picture from my childhood—my school playground, where a thistle had grown through the tarmac. Perhaps it was a symbolic representation of how, ultimately, nature cannot be suppressed. It is better to conserve and preserve before nature is under threat; it is better to get the balance between economic development and the protection of natural habitats right in the first place. The regulations are an important step along that road, and I support them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter). If his speech was an argument for balance, I am against it. The debate tonight is much more urgent and necessary than he suggests. He implied that we are having the debate thanks to the wonderful British Government. That is not so. We are having it thanks to the European Union. Its directive requires us to have a debate to introduce regulations to implement it.
The key question underlying the debate and the regulations is whether they will make any difference. Some of us are extremely sceptical about that.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman always is.

Mr. Hughes: I am always sceptical about the Government's determination to deliver such a policy. The evidence commissioned by the Government and produced by officials leads us to believe that habitats, species and biodiversity are under extreme risk and in danger.
Throughout most of the earth's history, the rate of extinction has been in the order of one to 10 species per year. In the next 30 years, we risk losing between 150,000 and 300,000 species per year. The debate is about what part Britain should play in looking after our bit of the environment. People could produce litanies about the amount of woodland, marshland, wetland and heathland that has been lost.
Clear statistics exist on how some of the most common species of familiar birds like the robin are much more at risk than they used to be. Last year, the mouse-eared bat became extinct in the United Kingdom—the first mammal to be declared extinct since the wolf in the 1740s. I spent a night in wonderment in Pembrokeshire looking at horseshoe bats, the population of which is down to probably 1 per cent. of its population at the beginning of the century.
Most significantly, the Government should follow their own evidence on this matter. Let us consider the countryside and habitats as opposed to species. At the end of last year, the Government-commissioned countryside survey of 1990 was published. The broadsheet newspapers carried the following headlines:
Decade of decline for wildlife".
£m survey reveals decline of this green and pleasant land".
Hedgerows in steep decline, department's survey shows".
In The Daily Telegraph the headline read:
Landscape census reveals depth of rural destruction".
Whether considering hedges, arable fields, weeds, pastures, meadowland, moorland or plant life, the survey showed that there had been significant reductions almost entirely across the board.
The important point is that the countryside survey covered the period since the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That, therefore, suggests that the legislation, which the regulations are meant to replicate, has done little to protect the habitats of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman note schedule 4 on page 58 of the order which contains a list of nine plants? The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in 1974–75, I took through the House the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, a private member's Bill. Schedule 2 of that measure listed 21

species and it was consolidated into the 1991 Act. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in inviting the Minister to tell us what has happened to the 19 species that were listed in the 1975 Act and to establish how many of those species have become extinct in the British Isles?

Mr. Hughes: I am happy to endorse that request. It would be helpful if the Minister could answer it in his winding-up speech or later on advice.
The warning note is being sounded not only by Opposition Members and people with a particular interest in species. The last paragraph of the editorial in The Times last autumn following the countryside survey puts the argument as well as anyone:
This big island is still too small to have room for savannahs or Saharas, or any more concrete or docklands jungles, or much more motorway. In its pointilliste variety, the countryside survey is a reminder of diversity, the natural British virtue. And a useful warning of the pressures that threaten it. The natives will not forgive their master if they ignore the Domesday warning.
If the Government are true to the convention which they signed at Rio de Janeiro and which, on environment day this year, they ratified—which we welcomed—if they are true to the goal of that convention, if their policy, as published in their documents, is to conserve and enhance biological diversity in the United Kingdom, they should seek to protect all species. They should not, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton argued, go for a balance whereby it is all right to lose some of them. We must keep the bio-diversity of Britain.
I should like to ask some questions and to request some answers. First, what additional protection do the regulations give to protected species that wildlife and countryside legislation does not already give? Secondly, in relation to both land-based habitats and marine habitats, is not it right that, because of the huge amount of consultation —to which I do not object—a huge compromise will be built in as a result of the regulations?
The Government still intend to rely on voluntary arrangements. Although there will be more marine protection under the regulations, all sorts of organisations with separate interests will temper the potential benefit of the regulations. The sea fisheries committee, National Rivers Authority, harbour authorities, local authorities and nature conservation agencies may conspire to mitigate and to reduce the effect of the regulations.
Thirdly, is it not the case that, after all the consultation, and although I accept the Government's undertaking that they will produce the list, as they are meant to, by 1995, they will produce a minimalist rather than a maximalist set of regulations, which do the minimum that is necessary to comply with the European directive? That has never reflected the urgency of the matter.
Fourthly, the present law is toothless and flawed. It was not I who used those words, but the Law Lords in the High Court in a major case last year. One said that, because the Wildlife and Countryside Act applied only to owners and occupiers,
a stranger who enters the land for a few weeks solely to do some work on it does not fall into that category.
Therefore, the legislation is insufficient to penalise the fly tipper. Why will not the Minister come to the House with specific proposals that will allow him to say that, as a result, sites will be much more adequately protected?
Lastly, is it not the case that the only way to make sure that the regulations are effective is to ensure that all countryside and conservation schemes have one simple


objective: protection and enhancement of current habitats. We are sceptical and we are right to be so. We do not believe that, by the time the Government get around to doing things, many of the remaining habitats will be left to be protected.

Mr. Elliot Morley: We give the regulations, which are important to nature conservation, a guarded welcome.
I am sorry that some hon. Members took up much time without raising serious issues, despite the fact that many Labour Members wished to speak. I say to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) that those of us who object to people inflicting pain on animals for fun accept that there is cruelty in the wild, but when the hon. Member for Sutton thinks that it is normal behaviour to come into the House with a live vole and devour it in front of us, we shall accept that it is normal for people to inflict pain on animals.
The Minister will not be able to reply in detail to all the points that have been made in the debate, but I hope that he will take my points on board along with the other relevant points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
We want to see more monitoring, and my hon. Friend mentioned the need to ensure adequate funds for monitoring. We are concerned that monitoring is being cut. I wrote to the Department about cuts in the contract of the British Trust for Ornithology with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Those cuts will mean that work on integrated population management monitoring will be deferred for 12 months, that work on woodland and farmland habitats will be cut to six months and that: posts designated for recovery processing will be reduced by 20 per cent. These cuts will affect next year's wetland bird survey.
The British Trust for Ornithology is an extremely cost-effective organisation that provides much reliable scientific data by amateur input, and I am surprised that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has made the cuts. I cannot blame the Minister, as it is a cut within the total budget, not a budget cut, but I hope that he will look at this matter carefully because proper monitoring will not be possible without proper scientific research.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that SSSIs are not necessarily offering protection? My hon. Friend knows well the Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency, which have not been protected despite their SSSI status. If the Government make Thorne moors a special area of conservation, will he join me in hoping that it will offer more protection than it has had previously?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is well known for his campaigning for Thorne moors, which are a fine example of raised peat bog. I hope that the Minister takes that into account.
We are a bit sceptical about the Government's record on hedgerow protection. Linear habitat has been mentioned, and the Government made the introduction of a hedgerows Bill a manifesto commitment. We do not think that leaving

it to a private Member's Bill, with all the difficulties associated with it, meets their manifesto commitment or shows proper concern and priority for habitat protection.
We must draw attention to resources. About £3 billion goes into agriculture, about 4 per cent. of which is committed to the habitat directive and 1 per cent. to the agri-environment package. We have no idea how species such as otters, dormice, native pinewoods, orchids and rich grasslands will be protected—an issue of concern to the wildlife trusts.
The concern about monitoring is shared by organisations such as the National Farmers Union, which made points about consultation and made further sensible points about the need for proper resources to conduct monitoring.
We should have liked pond protection to be included in the regulations, as the excellent document of the Council for the Protection of Rural England outlined. But, above all, we believe that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not adequate. There are problems with protecting SSSIs and with compensation agreements. We would rather see the voluntary principle apply. We recognise that many landowners have an excellent record on habitat protection.
One of my local farmers, Ted Harland, has done tremendous work on his farm to help the environment, and that needs to be recognised, but others have abused the compensation system and obtained millions from the taxpayer without doing much in terms of conservation or habitat protection. Some management agreements are worth more than if the Government had bought the land.
Those are the issues that need to be looked at. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to them.

Mr. Atkins: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) spoke of problems with SSSIs. More than 6,000 SSSIs cover 8 per cent. of Great Britain. Some damage is sometimes inevitable, but in the vast majority of examples the damage is short term and such that the site can recover from it. In 1992–93, for example, there were only 153 cases of recorded damage, and all but a few are expected to recover completely. That represents a loss of 0.001 per cent.—11 hectares out of 858,000 hectares, whatever they are. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as I said, I shall do what I can to ensure that we get the information, although I understand that there are some difficulties about that.
I recently paid a visit to the Game Conservancy and was fascinated to learn about the work that it has been doing recently on the effects of set aside- and how it can encourage farmers and landowners to reattract birds like the corn bunting, the grey partridge and others. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, North gets an opportunity to go to the Game Conservancy, I recommend that he does so. He will find that it exists not only for those who enjoy hunting but that it conducts much worthwhile work; it is worth a visit.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned peat bogs—a subject dear to my heart. I have some in my constituency, but as a Minister in Northern Ireland I was instrumental in drawing up a document that went a long way to trying to save the remaining few peat bogs in Northern Ireland. As he will know, in the north-west and Lancashire there is a


substantial number of bogs and we are pleased that Fisons and English Nature have reached an agreement that will ensure their future.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and other hon. Members mentioned resources. We are as concerned as they are to ensure that resources are made available, although this must be considered in the context of the public expenditure round. We are proud of the fact that last year resources for agencies increased by 7.6 per cent. I cannot, with my Secretary of State sitting alongside me, guarantee that we shall be able to do the same again, but we intend to do so if we can.
A number of other important issues were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who I now forgive because I understand the reasons for his raising them, and I promise faithfully that I shall deal with them by writing to all hon. Members because time will not permit me to deal with them at length. My hon. Friend emphasised the importance of the owners and users of some of the areas concerned. I met wildfowlers on the Ribble marshes and know how much they have done to ensure growth of wildfowl in the area. That was admitted by English Nature.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) was entirely right about consultation. There are problems with bats in churches and they should not be underestimated. He will not find me in favour of the anti-hunting stance—

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER —put the Question, pursuant to Order [15 July].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

Assisted Places

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
As the House will know from debates in previous years, the draft regulations have a specific, straightforward purpose. They simply update the principal regulations, the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989. Essentially, they implement the annual uprating of the parental contribution tables, and thus set out the amounts parents must pay towards their child's assisted place at a participating independent school in the coming year. If approved, the amended regulations will come into force on 26 August 1994.
I shall confine my remarks to the effect of this annual uprating. First, regulation 2 increases the allowance made for each dependent child, other than the assisted place holder, against parents' total relevant income when calculating their contribution to school fees. The allowance is raised from £1,125 to £1,140, in line with inflation, and will maintain the help for families with more than one child.
Regulation 3 sets out the income bands used for assessing parents' contributions to fees. Like the dependant's allowance, the bands have been uprated in line with the 1.4 per cent. movement in the retail prices index to October last year.
The income threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is correspondingly raised from £9,225 to £9,352 a year. There are corresponding increases in the thresholds for the higher income bands. The effect is that parents whose relevant income has risen in line with inflation will continue to contribute the same proportion of that income and, indeed, the same amount in real terms.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Minister for managing to give us that speech, despite the great efforts that he was having to make with his breathing. Obviously, it would not be appropriate to go into that subject now.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his seat. A Liberal Democrat press release issued this evening seems to show that the hon. Member for Bath is, for departmental purposes, a non-person. He is described in the press release as a declared presidential candidate.
But there is a total blank as regards the education brief of the Liberal Democrats. There is mention of a home affairs team leader, community and urban affairs, foreign affairs and defence, Europe, Treasury, environment, health and welfare, but nothing about education. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bath is at least present in person, even if his brief has disappeared off the end of the Liberal Democrat press release.
I shall return to the substantive issue of the assisted places scheme. Tonight's debate gives the Labour party the opportunity once again to make it clear that we believe that the scheme is an ineffective use of taxpayers' money in the education world. While we would not want to disturb the


education of any child currently holding an assisted place, we would phase out the scheme and use the money for better purposes.
At present, it appears that few people know about the existence of the assisted places scheme. An opinion poll that took a sample of more than 2,000 people last autumn showed that only about 40 per cent. knew of the scheme's existence, and even fewer knew exactly how to go about finding out about it.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bearing with me during my breathless introduction. Is he going to argue that uprating should not be made? He will be aware that the measure is purely and simply to uprate the existing provision, and has nothing to do with the principle. Is he about to argue that he is against the uprating even though the order cannot do away with the regulations and the scheme itself, as he has said he would like to do?

Mr. Griffiths: In his introduction, the Minister mentioned the modest increases this year. We believe that, given the levels of inflation and the unsatisfactory nature of the scheme, it would be as well to leave the scheme as it is, rather than do anything more with it. We will phase out the scheme when given the opportunity.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Many poor children benefit from the scheme. There are many children in my constituency whose families have a low income and who have benefited from and enjoyed the scheme. Some children are well on their way through the scheme and are making good progress in life. Will the Labour party take away that opportunity from poor children? It would be a very spiteful thing to do.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should realise how few people benefit, in his terms, from the assisted places scheme. There are more than 3 million—almost 3.25 million—pupils in secondary education in this country at present, of which fewer than 30,000 participate in the assisted places scheme. We are talking about less than 1 per cent. of the secondary school population. More than half the parents of those pupils who participate in the scheme went to private schools. The only survey that I know that has been done about the social background of children on the assisted places scheme showed that only 7 per cent. came from families with a manual background.
A large number of families participating in the scheme have below-average incomes—I am not disputing that. But the fact that more than half the pupils who have assisted places have families with professional and managerial backgrounds is more a comment on the very poor rewards given to such people under a Conservative Government. The sum of more than £90 million spent on the assisted places scheme could be better used on improving the educational opportunities of poor children.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is generous to give way for the second time. I shall not be boring and constantly intervene, but I should remind the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. David Jamieson: That will make a change.

Mr. Greenway: I shall certainly remind that boring hon. Gentleman, who is making absurd remarks from a sedentary position and who knows nothing about education

—other hon. Members should pay no attention to him—that education is about principles. If we forget that, and argue in awful pragmatic terms, we make no progress in education, and forget children.
Has the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) forgotten the example of Parmiters grammar school in east London—a two-stream grammar school which took 60 children a year? The Labour Government of the day said that the school was wrecking the surrounding 18 comprehensive schools by creaming off 60 children a year, so they closed Parmiters school, which moved to Hertfordshire.
The 60 children a year were distributed among the 18 comprehensives and sank without trace. The opportunity that those children lost has never been regained. If the Labour party is to talk about principles, it should mean what it says.

Mr. Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was Lady Thatcher who closed more grammar schools than any other Secretary of State for Education in history. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman ever allowed such things to happen. What influence did he have at the time all this was happening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have let the hon. Gentleman respond, just as I allowed the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to intervene, but this debate is about the uprating of the assisted places scheme. As we have now let off some steam, from now on we must get back to what the order is about.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The order is about increasing the money available for the assisted places scheme, as you rightly say. The Opposition believe that that is not the most effective way of using the money in the education budget; it should be used to give all the children who need help the right start in education.
In 1992–93, the latest date for which we have definitive Department figures, £92.8 million was spent on the scheme. Confirming the increases in the course of his breathless introduction, the Minister did not tell us what the overall cost would be—but I guess that it will amount to many millions of pounds.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I believe I am right in saying that the uprating will not cost anything, because the parents will pay more. The hon. Gentleman is therefore tilting at windmills. He has agreed that the scheme costs £90 million; I understand that the uprating will be borne by the parents.

Mr. Griffiths: No, the uprating means that more money will also be paid out. The figures for the Department for Education are to be found on page 3 of the 1994–95 to 1996–97 Government expenditure plans. The estimated outturn for 1993–94 is £95 million, rising the following year to £102 million, then to £106 million and on to £110 million in 1996–97. Thus, more money is indeed to be spent on the scheme.
The money is being spent in schools where the fees range from, on 1992–93 figures, £2,790 to £9,210. Fifty schools are receiving more than £500,000 apiece each year. About 70 schools rely on this income to cover the education of about 20 per cent. of their pupils.
It is interesting to note that, although the Government are spending all this money, there would appear to be either


some mismanagement in the scheme or an underestimate of expenditure on it—or perhaps the schools in question are charging fees that go well beyond inflation. In April this year, we were told that 28,764 pupils participated in the scheme—0.89 per cent. of all secondary school pupils. Yet the departmental report published a month earlier pointed out that the maximum number of places available under the scheme was 33,593. That means that roughly 5,000 available places were not taken up, partly because the funding was apparently exhausted.
Incidentally, these places cost an average £3,236 each. In Wales, that figure is even higher: 691 pupils receive an average of £3,556, from a total of almost £2.5 million. If one compares those figures with the average weighting for school pupils aged between 11 and 16, one will see that it is just £1,554 in state schools. The standard spending assessment, used to calculate education expenditure, is £2,741—considerably less than the amounts made available through the assisted places scheme.
The point about our objection to the continuing increase and the uprating of all aspects of the assisted places scheme is that money is being spent in a way that does not fairly give opportunities to everybody.
Both Her Majesty's inspectorate, when it was monitoring standards in schools, and the Audit Commission, looked exhaustively at the results of the schools that participate in the scheme, as compared with those in the state sector, and found no significant difference. The Minister has come to tell us today that all that uprating is taking place, yet the money is being spent on schools that are no better than those in the state sector, and are costing the taxpayer much more.

Mr. George Kynoch: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is proposing to oppose an uplift. Does he accept that he is imposing significant hardship on those already participating in the assisted places scheme, and that that is inconsistent with his view—that he wishes to phase it out rather than stop it instantly, because he does not wish to cause hardship to those people? Is there not a distinct inconsistency in his argument?

Mr. Griffiths: No. If the rate of inflation were much higher, there could be arguments about that, but we are talking about what, in essence, is a modest change overall to the scheme. I accept, therefore, that we are not going to cause any significant hardship to the people involved in taking the privilege granted to them by the Government. In the main, it does not go to children from families with a manual background, which was the declared purpose of the scheme when it was first established.
If the Government want to spend money in a more effective fashion, the Department for Education should consult the Home Office and divert enough money into section 11 funding, where it would be of significant use in helping children who have difficulties with the English language to have a good start in life and the education they require.

Mr. Forth: I want to help the hon. Gentleman and the House by putting something into context. The hon. Gentleman used the quaint term "manual occupations" a number of times. Given his background and conditions, I

can understand that he might be rather hung up on that, but I offer the House something that is more relevant to the broader view.
Some 60 per cent. of assisted places scheme parents have relevant incomes of less than £13,500 per annum. Some 40 per cent. of parents have incomes below the current threshold of £9,225 per annum, and their children qualify for free assisted places. Therefore, if we can get away from the obsession with manual occupations and just look at income levels, the scheme, I submit, is very successful in helping those with low incomes to get access to an area of education that would otherwise be denied to them.

Mr. Griffiths: I must point out to the Minister that I have already referred to that information—perhaps while he was searching for it. I pointed out that, although only 7 per cent. of the children participating were from families of a manual background, more than 50 per cent. were from families with professional and managerial backgrounds, and more than half the parents had had a private education themselves. Perhaps it was a reflection of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, but they still did not have particularly high wages.
The argument is not about the less than 1 per cent. of secondary schoolchildren who could benefit from the scheme but about whether the money could be better used to help the children of low-income parents. That could be done, but this is not the appropriate debate to deal with that in detail. However, it is about time that the Public Accounts Committee looked to see whether there is any value for money in the scheme and whether the money could be better spent in other areas to help the children of low-income families.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I know from my long experience in education that diversity of provision is the fundamental principle by which our children are educated. That must mean schools of every kind—mixed, single-sex, voluntary, grant-maintained, grammar and independent. That is necessary because children are so different, and the measure takes account of those fundamental differences. A child must be suited to an institution. The only logical outcome of the response by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to the proposals is uniformity of school provision.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The immediate removal of the scheme would have virtually no impact on the vast majority of private schools. Secondly, not all comprehensive schools are the same, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that. There is a huge diversity in comprehensives.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate should address the desirability or otherwise of amending the criteria for eligibility for the assisted places scheme. It is not a general debate on education policy. I shall be pretty strict about that.

Mr. Greenway: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The principle behind the measure is the preservation of a scheme that will be seriously impaired and will perhaps fall if the measure is not passed. If it falls, an important leg of the diverse provision that is required for our children


will be removed. That is the basis of my argument and of my challenge to the hon. Member for Bridgend, who challenged me in an extraordinary way.

Mr. Don Foster: So that the House may understand where the hon. Gentleman's argument is taking us, may I ask whether it is his premise that, if the assisted places scheme were to be scrapped, the independent schoolS sector would also disappear?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is not suggesting that.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend. She is right: of course I suggested no such thing. I spoke of the assisted places scheme being removed as a result of the challenge mounted by the Labour and Liberal parties, whose spokesmen have given their word that, if either party were elected to government—in my opinion, they never will be again—their policy would be to remove the assisted places scheme.
That would not mean the end of those schools, but poor children would no longer be able to go to them. Thai is the crucial matter, and it is the business that is before the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The mix would go. There would be a much narrower range of children able to go to those schools.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said in an intervention when the hon. Member for Bridgend so generously gave way to me, if we cease to argue principles in terms of education, even if a provision is made available only to a small number of children, we are not arguing education at all.
Let me draw a parallel with the regulations. A small number of children qualify under special needs legislation —I am not digressing, I simply draw a parallel—but if we removed that provision, what damage would be caused to those children?

Mr. Win Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Bridgend shakes his head, but fewer children require special needs provision than ultimately take advantage of education under the assisted places scheme. Definition is very important:.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall give way just once more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues down this road, the Chair will not accept it.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. May I point out that about 2 per cent. of children have statements, which is more than double the number in the assisted places scheme? If we went beyond statemented pupils, we would be talking about a far greater number, and there is no way in which the two should be equated.

Mr. Greenway: I am not going beyond statemented pupils; I am talking about a certain level of statemented pupils. My cut-off point was lower than the number of children on the assisted places scheme.
If we took the 2 per cent. of children in maintained schools who are or who ought to be statemented, we would still be arguing the principle, and if we took away the

provision that is required to be made for them, we would damage their education enormously. The same would be true if we took away the special provision for gifted children and very poor children which the assisted places scheme represents.
In education, it is no good speaking simply in pragmatic terms or—I do not say this meanly or rudely—deteriorating to the level of argument that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House this evening. It is thoroughly unworthy, but it is typical of how the Labour party is arguing about education at present. It is limiting on many levels, and that is why the Labour party is losing, and will continue to lose, the argument on education in Britain at every level.
Who in the end is damaged by the attitude to education of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party but the poor of the nation? What does the hon. Gentleman stand up and say? He says, "I am here championing the children of blue collar workers.". He is doing the opposite and damaging the children of blue collar workers, and the tragedy is that he does not realise it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He does realise it.] If he does, it is unforgivable, but if he does not, it is his loss and his own ignorance. I put that to him, and I ask him to wake up.

Mr. Don Foster: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to begin by making an apology. During Education questions last week, I inadvertently and incorrectly attributed to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), a quotation which appears in column 817 of the Official Report. Although I rapidly discovered my error before it was pointed out to me by anybody else, and contacted the Minister's office to apologise, I wish to place on record my apology to the Minister and to withdraw my allegation that he had made such a statement.
I cannot, however, withdraw my opposition to the regulations before us, but I was grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for attempting to create a level playing field between myself and the Minister.
We all noticed how breathless the Minister was when he delivered his speech, but the hon. Gentleman's reference to a Liberal Democrat press release took my breath away, so the Minister and I are in somewhat similar circumstances this evening.
This is my third opportunity to contribute to debates on these regulations. Both last year and the year before I made it absolutely clear that I did not believe it helpful to view the independent sector as the perpetrator of all that is wrong in our still, sadly, class-ridden society. However, I do not accept that the taxpayers' money that the Government are spending on the independent sector is money well spent. It cannot be right to spend money to ensure that pupils benefit from the supposedly superior education in independent schools when there is no real evidence that that is providing value for money. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would be especially concerned about that.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that an impressive 90 per cent. of assisted places scheme pupils go on to university or other forms of higher education and that a high success rate—98 per cent.—is achieved at A-level? Does not that represent


value for money, bearing in mind the fact that the cost for each pupil is £3,405, whereas the cost for a pupil in Tower Hamlets is £4,177? Surely it represents excellent value for money.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because his comments lead me to the next point that I had intended to make.
In our previous two debates, I raised with the Minister my concern about value for money and I asked him to provide evidence that that was being achieved. On both occasions, he provided the very evidence that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has cited as evidence of value for money. However, as all hon. Members know, with the assisted places scheme comes a selection procedure that ensures that the pupils who benefit from the scheme are those who, in any case, are the most likely to achieve the sort of results referred to by the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Bridgend pointed out, there is no evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate or from Ofsted that the scheme provides value for money in terms of increased educational benefits for those pupils who participate in it.
It cannot be right for money—we will return to the question of specific amounts when the Minister replies—to be used primarily to prop up a number of independent schools that find themselves in increasing difficulties. I am sure that a number of hon. Members will have seen last weekend's article in The Sunday Times. It pointed out that a number of independent schools were pegging their fees because they were finding significant difficulty in attracting pupils. They are holding down the fee levels in an attempt to reverse the drift away by parents struggling to pay their bills.
As evidence of that possible connection, it is worth noting that one of the schools mentioned in the article is Dulwich college. That school happened to receive the largest amount of money—£1.3 million—from the assisted places scheme last year. As the hon. Member for Bridgend said, a number of other independent schools also receive a significant proportion of their income from the scheme. For example, at Wisbech grammar school more than 50 per cent. of its pupils are covered by the scheme and at four other schools more than 40 per cent. are covered.
There is some concern about the way the money is being spent and about accountability. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who has left the Chamber, said that she believed that the regulations do not involve any additional money being spent on the scheme. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will confirm how much money is intended to be spent on the scheme in the forthcoming financial year. Indeed, the Minister told us earlier—from a sedentary position—that he was more than happy to confirm that it would be many millions of pounds. How many millions are we talking about? In 1991–92, the scheme was overspent by £10 million.
Answers given by the Minister to parliamentary questions over the past two or three months are very revealing. They demonstrate that the annual cost of the assisted places scheme has doubled over the past six years, to reach the amount—nearly £93 million—referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bridgend. During that time, the number of pupils benefiting from the scheme has risen by only 6 per cent. I do not think that even the hon.

Member for Ealing, North would consider that to be evidence of value for money. Moreover, the cost to the public purse of each assisted place has risen by 40 per cent. in the past five years.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Foster: Does the Minister wish to correct my figures?

Mr. Forth: No. I was merely wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had to hand the comparable figures for the maintained sector. I would not mind betting that, if he examined the number of pupils in that sector and the real cost of educating them, he would find a similar escalation. Although he has made an interesting observation, I do not think that the figures that he has cited are grossly out of line with the maintained sector as a whole.

Mr. Foster: That, too, is an interesting point. I shall make the comparison after the debate. The Minister should bear in mind, however, the fact that, if the rate of increase continues—and if he is correct in his prediction that, by 1995, 35,000 assisted places will be available—the total cost to the Exchequer in that financial year will be some £140 million. That will be many millions of pounds indeed, which some would argue could be better spent on other aspects of education.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the light of what he has said so far, would he care to tell us whether his party's policy would be to close down the assisted places scheme?

Mr. Foster: My party has made it clear that we do not feel able to support the scheme as it is currently organised, and that we would remove it. Like the hon. Member for Bridgend, we have also said that we would remove it in such a way that pupils currently benefiting would not be disadvantaged.
I suspect that the difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for Bridgend is this. My party has no antipathy to the independent schools sector, and has made clear its wish to explore ways in which a far better relationship could be built between it and the state sector. We have mentioned a number of ways in which that is already being done. There are a number of ways in which staff in independent and state schools work, train and develop together, and such action could replace the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I must finish. Other hon. Members wish to speak.
Because of our concern about the lack of evidence of value for money, and about the escalating cost of the scheme—there is no evidence that it is providing real benefit, and it does not help the wider community—we shall not be able to support the regulations.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I shall be brief. The debate so far has been shot through with inconsistencies. For example, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that his party would not destroy the scheme in a way that would upset the children currently benefiting from it so, clearly, he believes that it does benefit children, or he


would not have used those words. Members of Labour's Front Bench have made it perfectly clear that by opposing the regulations they want to send a clear signal that they intend to destroy first, the assisted places scheme and, secondly, I have no doubt, the independent sector as a whole.
We need to take into account the fact that the cost of the assisted places scheme is very small as a proportion of the total cost of education and that it is trivial compared to the amount of money that the independent sector saves the taxpayer by educating large numbers of children entirely at their parents' expense. In Kent, we believe that we need to do all that we can to preserve variety in education. Kent has fought a long and valiant battle to retain a variety of different kinds of education and schools. It is entirely proper that families of limited income should have made available to them the opportunity, if they so choose, to send their children to a school which they could otherwise not afford.

Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although there may be differences or nuances between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in this debate, there is no difference between their offensive behaviour towards freedom of choice and parental choice in Kent?

Mr. Rowe: Sadly, I must confirm that that is so. Whatever the Liberal Democrats may say nationally, what they say in Kent is extremely hostile to that county's choice.
There are many reasons why parents choose to send their children to be educated in the independent sector. It is by no means common for them to believe mindlessly that an independent school is inevitably better than a state school. They might choose to send their children to an independent school because they like its Christian ethos or the fact that it places an emphasis on music, science or has some other distinctive element of its own. If they choose to send their children to such a school, and if there is a limited scheme available to make it possible even though their own means do not extend to it, that is part of the rich diversity of education. It allows for comparisons to be made.
I suggest that the one thing that the Minister should take away from the debate is the clear message that we should think not only about inputs but outputs. We should be sure not only that the children who attend independent schools benefit therefrom—my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) made it clear that a substantial number do —but that the schools which participate in the scheme are the best for the purpose. That cannot necessarily be judged on results alone; it may have to do with the culture at the school and whether it welcomes and sustains children from families of limited means.
I know from personal experience as a schoolmaster and as a pupil at an expensive school that it can be extremely worrying for children to be in a school where virtually every other child comes from a family with an income far greater than his family's. Unless a school takes that on board, welcomes a child and makes the differences in family income unobvious, it can be a damaging rather than a sustaining experience.
Having said that, I believe that the assisted places scheme is valuable. The extraordinarily modest uprating, which is a clear indication of the control which the Government have exercised over inflation, is worth while, and I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. David Jamieson: I was pleased to be flattered by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who called me a boy earlier in the debate. It was clearly my youthful good looks and my boyish disposition which made him make such a comment.
Before the House divides on the matter of increasing the amount which we spend on the assisted places scheme, I hope that both of the points that I shall make, if not one of them only, will be widely supported. First, almost £100 million was being spent on the assisted places scheme, sending 28,674 children to independent schools last year. That, by definition, must have created empty spaces in state schools. I put to the House the simple point that it is not only the cost of the assisted place that we shall have to bear, but the cost of the place left behind, empty in a local state school, that the taxpayer will have to underwrite. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

Mr. Hawkins: How does that square with the Labour party's complaints about overcrowding in classrooms? Surely, if a child benefiting from an assisted place leaves a space behind, that has the benefit of creating a lower class size, of which the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesmen repeatedly say that they are in favour.

Mr. Jamieson: That is rather a banal point. I am sony to have to explain to the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between class size and empty places in schools. Many classes are of well over 30 children and some are of above 40, but other places in classrooms may be available. To save the time of the House, if the hon. Gentleman wants to see me some time later, I could explain it to him in a little more detail.
I hope that the other point that I wish to make receives wide support in the House. The Government have set store by the accountability of schools and that there should be proper accountability of public money—whether a relatively small amount of £100,000 or a substantial amount. Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who spoke of small amounts of money, I do not consider £100 million of public money a small amount. I consider that to be a substantial amount of public money. The spending of such money should be properly accountable through the House because the money is directed through the Department of Education and through the Minister.

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Jamieson: I note that the Minister nods in approval to that.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments for and against the assisted places scheme, as that has been ably done by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). However, I should like to argue for accountability for the amounts of money being spent on the assisted places scheme. If parents choose to send their children to a private or independent school and pay the whole fee themselves, it is their responsibility to undertake to ensure that that money is well spent and that their children are receiving the type of education for which the parents are paying.
I shall not argue with that. It is right and correct. However, if the taxpayer is having to pay a substantial amount of the cost of that education, the taxpayer, or at least the guardians of the taxpayers' money, have a role to


play in ensuring that the way in which that money is expended is accountable through the proper channels of the Government.
The Government have placed great stress on having a four-year cycle of Office for Standards in Education reports for schools, that those reports should be made public and that they should receive public discussion. I have no argument with that. Ofsted reports—Her Majesty's inspectors' reports, as they used to be—should be the subject of proper public debate and should certainly be available to parents. Indeed, they should be available to those who are underwriting and paying for those schools.
There is no obligation for independent schools to have any form of inspection. The Minister will know that, as earlier this year he gave me an answer in which he told me that very few private independent schools had had any form of inspection. For the schools that have had inspections, there is no obligation to make the report public and there is no obligation to send it to parents, as there is in the case of a local education authority or maintained school.
Earlier this year, I brought to the Minister's attention the cases of private independent schools—very few—that had had Ofsted reports. Some of the reports were very good and some were mediocre. I came across some that were exceedingly poor. A constituent who had a child at one of the schools asked the school whether he could have a copy of the Ofsted report that had been made last May. He was told by the school that it was not sending out copies of the Ofsted report.
If that had been a state or local education authority school, the head teacher would be breaking the law if he declined to send out a report. Because this school was a private school which received most of its money from the taxpayer, not through the assisted places scheme, but through a different scheme—the service boarding school allowance—for which the same principle applies, the parent asked for the report and the request was denied. He was told that he could not see the report. My view is that the same rules should apply to private independent schools that benefit from money under the assisted places scheme as apply to state and maintained schools.
Before the Minister considers increasing the amount that will be spent under the scheme—I am not arguing tonight about the rights or wrongs of the scheme—given, as all hon. Members would agree, that substantial amounts of taxpayers' money are being spent on it, will he agree to the following? If a private or independent school receives money from the taxpayer, it should be subject to the same four-year cycle of Ofsted reports as maintained or local education authority schools. Such a report should then be made public so that parents can see it and so that the local public can have an open debate on it. If the Minister agreed to that, he would considerably assist some of the private independent schools and he would certainly help the whole sector. I look forward to his comments on the matter tonight.

Mr. David Lidington: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and tell him that I cannot follow him in his doctrine of the empty place. I found his arguments on that point

unpersuasive and almost identical to the arguments that Labour Members advanced in the past against open enrolment and in favour of imposing artificial admission limits on popular schools, thus limiting parental choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) drew our attention earlier in the debate to the immediate consequence of the House failing to approve the regulations. The consequence would be that parents on modest incomes would find themselves less able to afford the cost of their children's education at schools running the assisted places scheme. It is not difficult, either, to envisage the longer-term consequences of a future Government choosing to abolish the assisted places scheme.
We have, after all, a pretty exact historical precedent. During the 1970s, the blessed Mrs. Shirley Williams abolished the direct grant scheme, the ancestor of the scheme that we are debating today. In practical terms, that meant that, whereas people such as myself had been able to benefit from the educational opportunities offered by council scholarships and the direct grant, other generations of children were not able to benefit in the same way. The schools concerned went down the route of full independence and I believe that that is the route which the schools participating in the assisted places scheme would take were this scheme also to be withdrawn.
The abolition of the assisted places scheme would increase social segregation, not diminish it. I frankly found it astounding to hear yet again the canard from Opposition spokesmen that some independent schools are being propped up by the assisted places scheme. When the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) cited Dulwich college as an example of an ailing school, I began to understand why he had been airbrushed out of his party's press release.
The truth is that the head teachers of the schools taking part in the assisted places scheme are themselves committed to providing an education which rests both on academic excellence and on the enlargement of opportunity for the greatest number of pupils from all backgrounds, regardless of social pedigree, race or religion.
What dismays and genuinely saddens me about the debates that we have each year about the assisted places scheme is that Opposition Members betray what seem to me to be the proudest elements of their own history. There was once a time when the Labour movement was in favour of enlarging opportunities for good education for children from poor areas.
We now see Opposition Members who took advantage of the opportunities of scholarships to public schools, direct grant schools and grammar schools and who, having seized the opportunities for themselves, now want to kick away the ladders so that none of the plebs can climb up behind them. I believe that the scheme is in the interests of education and of equality of opportunity and social diversity in this country.
I shall be glad to support my hon. Friend the Minister this evening.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had a very interesting debate about the uprating provided for under the order. I shall repeat one or two of the points which are relevant,


particularly to the remarks of the previous speaker, but also to the difference in approach to the provision of education taken by Members on either side of the House.
On the whole, the Government seem to put forward exclusive schemes in which only a very small minority can participate. I would remind hon. Members once again that fewer than 1 per cent. of children participate in the assisted places scheme. Of that 1 per cent., fewer than 2,500 are from the sort of background to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was pleased to refer in terms of Labour party history.
The Labour party wants to make sure that the opportunities which were previously available to only a few are available to all. After all, the proportion of people who passed the 11-plus depended on the local authority area in which they lived. The proportion might vary tremendously across the country. I was fortunate in being brought up in an area where about half the primary school pupils went on to grammar school. Frankly, the education provided in secondary moderns was nowhere near the same, and the amount of money spent on pupils in either sector was quite different as well.
We want to ensure that money spent on education enlarges the opportunities of 100 per cent. of children and not a mere I per cent. That is the difference between the two parties. From the Government, we have scheme after scheme to provide additional funding for small groups—1 per cent. here, 4 per cent. there and 2 per cent. somewhere else. All in all, the schemes encompass fewer than 10 per cent. of all pupils in secondary schools. We want to ensure that all children receive a good-quality education in their local school or, if parents' circumstances decree that they want to look at another school, that they should have that choice.
Let us make no bones about it: as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure on the assisted places scheme in six years, with only a 6 per cent. increase in the number of pupils participating.
One cannot make similar comparisons from the latest Department for Education expenditure plan report. On the figures with which one can make a comparison, however, between 1988–89 and 1992–93 there was a 6 per cent. increase in participation in the assisted places scheme, but its costs increased by about 80 per cent. For voluntary schools in the same period, expenditure increased by 16 per cent and local education authority expenditure on secondary schools increased by 28 per cent. I admit that I have worked that out without a calculator and in rather a hurry. If I were given different figures—

Mr. Don Foster: I gave the calculations.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I must not forget the contribution of the hon. Member for Bath. We have clearly shown that expenditure on the assisted places scheme goes far beyond that on other sectors of state education.
Once again, we oppose the uprating as a point of principle. We should be giving opportunities not to the few, but to everyone.

Mr. Forth: You would not want me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be tempted into a debate on the broad principles of the assisted places scheme. This is neither the time nor the occasion to do so. However much I enjoyed

my hon. Friends' contributions, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who dwelt on the theme of diversity of education and reminded the House of the extent to which Conservative Members want to give increasing choice to parents—covering grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, technical colleges, grammar schools, voluntary-controlled schools and the independent sector—I am sure that you would not want me to dwell on any of that. Nor would you want me to point out that virtually all those schools are under direct threat from the Opposition parties. It would be wrong for me to take up the time of the House in that way.
Equally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would probably look askance if I dwelt excessively on the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He pointed out so ably the opportunities that the scheme gives the less privileged, partly as a direct contrast to the perceptions of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who was obsessed by manual workers. That seems a quaint way of looking at the subject, but it is his way and I respect him for that, of course.
I would not necessarily even want to dwell on the value-for-money argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) outlined. He pointed out, rather succinctly, that it costs much more to educate a pupil in Tower Hamlets than to educate a pupil through the assisted places scheme. None of that is directly relevant to the debate, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would not want me to waste their time by going through those points at length.
What is relevant to the debate is that we are talking about £100 million. Yes, it is a lot of money, but it has to be put in context, as it is £100 million out of a total of £17 billion spent on education. We are introducing a very modest increase, which is tied to the retail price index, as is right at this stage. It allows us to balance the real benefits brought to many pupils and parents, by giving them access to an area of education to which they would not otherwise have access. We have proposed a modest increase to allow that to continue, which will be of great value not only to parents and pupils, but to society because it will provide diversity in education, in which Conservative Members passionately believe.
It is right to say that we should consider outputs and not inputs. That is the theme for the Department for Education and the Secretary of State for Education, and in the maintained sector and beyond. We must ask ourselves how much young people benefit from the assisted places scheme and we are doing so.

Mr. Jamieson: Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he deal with the points that I made to him? If independent schools are so good, what have they to fear from having a four-year Ofsted report that will be made public to parents in particular?

Mr. Forth: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall say that independent schools have nothing to fear from that. These are matters for Ofsted, an independent department of Government. I am sure that Ofsted will want to move in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It has nothing to fear and nor have we. In the first place, he should take the matter up directly with Ofsted. We can return to the issues as appropriate, but not in this debate.

Dr. Spink: Bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) took advantage of the independent sector, does not my hon. Friend believe that it is singularly hypocritical of the Opposition to oppose the uprating? Such opposition could deny able children of poor families the opportunity to take advantage of the independent sector.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that before deciding how to vote on this matter hon. Members on both sides of the House will give serious thought to what would happen if we were to deny parents and pupils the modest uprating. They should think of the children who would be denied access to the excellence of the independent sector. That is what is at stake; that is the issue. I hope that hon. Members will whole-heartedly support the regulations.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 160.

Division No. 299]
[9.57 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alton, David
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Fishburn, Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkins, Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
French, Douglas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fry, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gallie, Phil


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kiifedder, Sir James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'st'n)





Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Sidney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dafis, Cynog


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gapes, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Mike


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hanson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hardy, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cummings, John
Henderson, Doug


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)






Hoon, Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoyle, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L.


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Khabra, Piara S.
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Simpson, Alan


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCartney, Ian
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McFall, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McMaster, Gordon
Timms, Stephen


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Tyler, Paul


Madden, Max
Wallace, James


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Alice
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N


Maxton, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Audrey


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Worthington, Tony


Milburn, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Miller, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Mr. John Spelter and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Mowlam, Marjorie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SUMMER TIME

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 27th June.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — Church of England (Legal Aid)

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As its name suggests, this Measure is concerned with the Church of England's legal aid system. That system is completely separate from the state legal aid system, and its primary purpose is to provide financial assistance, in suitable cases, for the legal costs of clergy and some other ministers in proceedings before Church courts and tribunals that may involve the loss of their office and their ability to exercise their ministry.
This legal aid is funded partly by the central board of finance of the Church of England and partly by the Church Commissioners; but ultimately it is borne by the parishes throughout the country. Although the Church of England's legal aid arrangements are obviously on a fairly small scale, they have not been immune from the serious problem of rising costs which has beset the state legal aid system. At a time when the Church is under particular financial pressure, that has obviously given rise to some concern in C of E circles.
The Measure implements a number of recommendations by the General Synod's legal aid commission, which administers the system, for keeping the costs involved to the minimum consistent with the purpose of the scheme. It seeks to allow the legal aid commission to function as effectively and economically as possible, and to provide the Church of England with the best possible value for the money spent.
At the same time, the Measure has consolidated previous legislation on the subject, so that a great deal of what is before the House tonight is consolidation—it merely repeats the provisions which the House approved as recently as 1988.
One of the legal aid commission's recommendations was that, in future, the Church's system should be confined to its primary purpose, which, as I have already mentioned, involves the possible loss of office. It is obviously important that a member of the clergy facing, say, disciplinary proceedings or major difficulties with his or her parishioners, should be able to come to an independent central body which operates in complete confidence for help with the legal costs involved.
There are, however, some other cases when the commission recommended that any requests for help of this kind should be dealt with locally—for example, by the diocese—in the light of local needs, conditions and circumstances, instead of involving other parishes throughout the country in contributing to the cost.
The Measure therefore removes cases in these limited categories from the centrally funded legal aid system. I hope that it will reassure colleagues to know that the General Synod unanimously accepted this as a fair and reasonable system. Moreover, after detailed scrutiny, our own Ecclesiastical Committee also found it expedient.
Some of the other new provisions in the Measure increase the legal aid commission's administrative powers so that it can function as efficiently as possible. More importantly, it adds to the criteria that previously governed

the grant in ecclesiastical legal aid by giving the commission an express power and duty to take all the circumstances of each case into account.
As the point was raised by an hon. Member in a debate here in 1988, I should mention the provision under which, when the commission is considering the financial resources of an applicant for legal aid, it must have regard to the resources of the applicant's spouse. That does not, and never did, require it to aggregate the spouse's capital and income automatically with the applicant's, as happens in some cases under the state legal aid system.
In contrast to the rigid secular provision, by requiring the commission to take all the circumstances into account, the new Measure gives it an increased discretion and greater flexibility, both in that and other cases, to do what is fair and proper in a particular case. Again, the Ecclesiastical Committee, after detailed examination of what was proposed, was satisfied that it was expedient.
The changes embodied in the Measure are limited in scope and, as I have already said, the General Synod gave final approval to them without a single dissenting vote. They will help to rationalise the Church of England's legal aid system, and to use the limited resources that the church has available for that system to best advantage.
I urge hon. Members to support the Measure.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall resist the temptation to make a very long speech, and merely offer the House one of moderate length.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) explained the provisions of the Measure perfectly clearly. He pointed out that it is largely a consolidation Measure, but that it points the way to improvements in the arrangements. I hope that the House will agree with his assessment that it is a modest but desirable Measure.
One must understand that, in the latter years of the 20th centure, the clergy are not well paid. Indeed, some right hon. or hon. Members, particularly those with substantial outside interests, would find it unimaginable that people should exist on the pay that our clergy receive. At the same time, the clergy are at the focal point in the exercise of their pastoral responsibilities, with much of the anguish and ordeals to which many ordinary people are subjected.
The pressure on them in many parishes may be such as to test their faith, and some, whose faith may be less strong or over-tested, may be in difficulty. It is only right that they should be regarded as the casualties of the sort of society that we in Britain face today.
I hope that the House will understand that those who are in that position deserve justice. They certainly should not be in a position in which great difficulty can be placed on them simply because they lack the resources to secure professional representation. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will view the Measure with much sympathy.
The right hon. Gentleman explained that the matter was considered quite exhaustively in the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not belive it appropriate to labour the point any further, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the Measure to the House.

Mr. Michael Bates: I shall make a few brief comments on the Measure, because some quite serious questions still need to be answered. They particularly surround the financing of the additional fund. Clause 1 of the Measure says:
The General Synod shall continue to maintain the Legal Aid Fund to which the General Synod and the Church Commissioners may contribute sums as each shall from time to time may decide.
That is an important point, because, as many hon. Members know, there are currently considerable difficulties over the financing of the Church Commissioners. It is widely reported that they have suffered considerable losses in the property market. That is regrettable, but it makes one wonder about their ability to make such a contribution when they are in such dire straits over funds.
I accept the point about the ability and wealth of the clergy, and I certainly accept that stipends are not generous. According to my most recent calculations, stipends are in the region of £12,000 to £12,500 a year. That is not generous, but one must consider the other so-called perks of the job, which may often include property. For most people, mortgage payments are a significant part of their outgoings, and to have £12,000 or £12,500 left over after a property is paid for is a considerable achievement.
In the context of legal aid, many clergy may also have funds made available for vehicles. Motor vehicles are often provided by the parish and form another important contribution to the overall income of many households. How would the rules apply to households containing two members of the clergy? In such cases, there are obviously two incomes, and the house is provided at some expense to the local diocese.
Another aspect of legal aid funding relates to the notion that the Church Commissioners should contribute. I accept that the clergy are as eligible for legal aid and advice as anybody else—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members should listen in silence to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), or hold conversations outside. [Hon. Members: "It is boring."] Order. Those who find it boring can go outside.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware of my long interest in this issue, and my detailed concern about the Measure, which I have often expressed privately and now have the opportunity to express publicly. I have a right to do that.
The legal aid system has increased tenfold since 1979, and is available to the clergy. I accept that there are income constraints on the fund, but why should the clergy be exempt from the rules that apply to their parishioners? Surely the clergy provide a service for their parishioners and should not enjoy a better set of rules than they do.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify for my benefit, and right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) could intervene to define, the categories for legal aid among the clergy, because they form a diverse group and many have their own resources. That was always part of the calling of the Church. To what part of the Measure is my hon. Friend referring?

Mr. Bates: With respect, I do not wish to stray from the narrow point I was discussing, and I shall leave that question to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby.
We are talking about using funds for legal aid purposes. The Church Commissioners' report drew attention to the total assets of the Church Commissioners. It is relevant to the debate, because it will support the legal aid fund that we are debating. That fund was estimated to be about £2.2 billion. About half that money was in equities.
According to the Church Commissioners' report, which I read with considerable interest, the income derived from that was about £167 million. We need to put down a marker. Will a maximum apply to claims from the legal aid fund? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby will refer to that in winding up.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as stipends are falling under the current adverse circumstances of the Church Commissioners, a greater burden will fall on the congregations to make them up? As congregations are also falling, stipends will fall and a greater burden will fall on the legal aid fund. How does my hon. Friend propose to deal with that?

Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The financing is all tied up with the legal aid Measure; we cannot divorce the two. We cannot talk about provision for a legal aid fund, but not the fund which will provide for it.
My hon. Friend rightly refers to the stipend. My local Church of England church was advised that a new measure was to be introduced to tackle the underfunding and shortfall in the Commissioners' coffers. It was to require all members of the Church of England—of whom I proudly declare myself one—to double their contributions. Given the evangelical nature of the Church, perhaps the best incentive for the clergy would be for the contributions to remain the same, but for the clergy to try to double their congregations. Perhaps that would have been a better way of approaching that financial problem.
I return to the Church Commissioners' fund. The fund has an income about of about £167 million. I was surprised to read about the amount of money that was contributed to the Church of England urban fund, which does a great deal of valuable work in our inner cities. In past years, it has been £25,000. That is not a staggering sum when one considers it alongside £2.2 billion in assets and £167 million in income.
Following adverse investment performance, the Church Commissioners decided not to cut the stipends of the clergy, but rather to cut the contributions to the urban fund. It was quite an abhorrent decision to cut help to those who are most needy, and certainly in far greater need than one would suggest of the clergy. We ought to examine the amount contributed to that fund.
If the Church Commissioners are providing legal aid protection in addition to the generous scheme which already applies, people will want to know what contribution will be made this year to the urban fund.
Just as the Church rightly chides the Government and urges them to reconsider their contribution to the inner cities, so from time to time this House may deem it right to examine the way in which the Church Commissioners handle their finances. I know that that point will be accepted in the spirit in which it was made.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable in these matters, so I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Taylor: I am not sure that I am knowledgeable, which is why I seek guidance from my hon. Friend. Is he saying that the Church of England urban fund has some bearing on the qualification for legal aid? I should have thought it to be an extraneous fund and therefore not linked, but perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify the matter in greater detail.

Mr. Bates: I shall explain the position as concisely as I can. The urban fund is relevant. I am making the point that the budget from the Church of England general fund —the Church Commissioners' budget—to help inner cities and the poorest in our community has been cut.
Where will the money come from to fund an extra level of legal aid when apparently money was not available to help the inner cities? Is there any limit on the areas under which people can apply for legal aid funding? What are the restrictions? Those are a few genuine points that need to be considered.

Dr. Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again—it is extremely good of him. Will he consider a hypothetical situation? Father Michael is the parish priest of St. Mary the Virgin in my constituency. That church is celebrating its 1,100th anniversary. Were Father Michael to have an accident in the street outside his church and need to make use of the legal aid fund, would the measure before us place him at any disadvantage?

Mr. Bates: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that that case would apply, because most churches have, or should have, public and employer liability insurances. In the unfortunate circumstances that my hon. Friend described, the right action would be to claim against the church's insurance.

Dr. Spink: I am sure that Father Michael will be delighted to hear that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend takes these matters very seriously, as I do. I am sure that my advice was genuinely sought and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accept that it was genuinely offered.
My points focus directly on the amount of the legal aid fund and the circumstances in which aid will be given. I have questioned whether the priority for the Church of England—this is all about setting priorities for the finite amount of cash available—should be to provide additional legal aid protection for the clergy. Many people may feel that, although their salaries are not huge, they are adequate, and there are additional benefits. Therefore, would not the money be better spent on the inner cities, through the Church urban fund, or even on missionary work overseas?
Those are genuine questions. We must get this matter right, because people look at the palaces in which many of our archbishops live in some comfort and with very adequate accommodation. I think especially of the Bishop of Durham's palace at Auckland castle, which is quite a generous provision. I think also of Bishopsthorpe in York.
I have asked genuine questions, and I hope that I will receive answers to them.

Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the helpful and positive response to the Measure that we heard from the official Opposition spokesman on Church of England affairs, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I know that he is as gratified as I am to note the interest and support indicated by tonight's substantial turnout. I hope that if, by some infernal machination, a Division is called—heaven forbid —the hon. Gentleman will act as both shepherd and Whip, and will guide his flock unfailingly into the Aye Lobby to support the Measure that he has so eloquently endorsed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) hit on an important point when he mentioned clause I of the Measure, which refers to the contribution that the General Synod and the Church Commissioners—he made particular mention of the latter—may make to our legal aid fund. I am grateful for his sensitive and responsible concern about the Church of England's finances.
As he said, the Church is not as flush as it might be; he will understand, however, that the long stop is the ordinary man and woman in the parish—the regular churchgoer—who currently puts about £2.50 a week into the collection plate, but could easily contribute a bit more if he or she thought that it was needed.
As soon as we present such people with that need, they will divert some of their giving from good charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid in favour of the Church. Potentially, we have a considerable resource. I should add that the Church Commissioners have no legal duty to contribute to the Church's legal aid fund; they do so purely in a spirit of co-operation, helpfulness and constructive support for its needs.
The purpose of the Measure—in so far as it goes beyond being a consolidation measure—is pinpointed in the Legislative Committee's report, which can be found on page 4 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report. My hon. Friend will note that the changes that we are making were prompted by
a particular case, involving a clergyman against whom disciplinary proceedings were taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, which resulted in heavy expenditure, both from the Fund and from other sources".
A single item of expenditure involved a six-figure cost. I think that that will demonstrate to my hon. Friend how concerned we were, and are, about the potential liabilities of the legal aid fund.
It is for precisely that reason that the Measure seeks to introduce refinements and improvements. Paragraph 7(c) of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report gives details of the proposed retrenchment, and explains that certain categories who have been able to draw support from the fund will henceforth be disqualified. We need to save money because of rising costs. We are trying hard to husband money, which is clearly what my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh wants us to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asked whether we were refining the scope of the Measure, and looking seriously at the costs involved. Who would be eligible for help?
Let me repeat the summary that I gave in my introductory speech. Essentially, the aim of the legal aid fund is to provide financial assistance in cases of proceedings before Church courts and tribunals that may involve defendants' loss of office and ability to exercise


their ministry—that is, they may be chucked out of their parishes. If my hon. Friend wants the full technical scope, the list of applicants who may or may not be eligible for assistance is set out in schedule 4 to the Measure.
With those summary comments and the support of my hon. Friends, in great appreciation of the support of the hon. Member for Wentworth and in confident expectation that, in view of the many hon. Members who have stayed behind tonight, there will be a substantial vote in favour of the Measure if, which I hope is not the case, it is pressed to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Moths, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer, Mr. John Ward and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Hon Members: Object.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Page 18 of "Erskine May" refers to the salary paid to the Leader of the Opposition, being the sum of £49,207. From what date will that payment come into force, and will the Opposition make a statement about the date on which the Leader of the Opposition will be appointed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman seems to have been raising bogus points of order most of the day. That is not a matter for the Chair.

PETITIONS

Orsett Hospital

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is my privilege to present a petition signed by the mayor of Thurrock, Councillor Barry Palmer, by the leader of Thurrock council, Councillor Jimmy Aberdein, by Councillor Beverly Barton, the vice-chairman of Essex county council and more than 40,000 residents of the borough of Thurrock. It reads:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom sheweth
That the people of Thurrock have already been substantially disadvantaged by the closure of the accident and emergency department at Orsett hospital and that this was carried out despite the views of the overwhelming majority of the borough's citizens.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Secretary of State for Health to reassure the citizens of Thurrock by interceding with the regional and local health authorities and the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust to ensure

that they continue to maintain and improve the facilities at Orsett hospital by reaffirming their commitment to this much valued health facility.
The petition has been signed by some 40,000 residents.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) presents her petition, may I say that it is not necessary to go to the Bar of the House; hon. Members can go directly behind the Chair.

Hospitals (Sheffield)

Mrs. Helen Jackson: That saves me a little walk, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have the privilege to present a petition signed by 24,000 residents of my and other Sheffield constituencies to protest against the threatened closure of children's wards at the Northern General hospital.
It reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the users and potential users of the existing paediatric provisions in Sheffield and its environs showeth the continuing need for the retention of existing children's wards at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield.
That the consultation proposals for the closure of those wards by the Sheffield Health Authority and the Sheffield Family Health Services Authority are not in accord with the wishes and the needs of the specific area.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to maintain the current children's wards at this hospital. And your petitioners, as in duty, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Bill Michie: It gives me great pleasure, and anger at the same time, to present a petition, containing 4,773 signatures. That may not sound many, but it is in addition to the 40,000 signatures already presented to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. Those signatures were sent to every Sheffield Member of Parliament; the hon. Members for Hallam (Mr. Patnick), for Central (Mr. Caborn), for Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), for Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and for Heeley (Mr. Michie).
Therefore, I shall present the petition, which says:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petitioners of the users and the potential users of the existing accident and emergency provisions in Sheffield and its environs showeth that the continuing need for the retention of the existing accident and emergency provision in full at the Royal Hallamshire and the Northern General hospitals in Sheffield.
That the consultation proposals for the closure of one of the units by the Sheffield Health Authority and the Sheffield Family Health Services Authority are not in accord with the wishes and the needs of the specified area;
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to maintain the current accident and emergency services in Sheffield and its environs. And your petitioners, as in duty, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Prostitution

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wood.]

Dr. Lynne Jones: I have sought this debate on behalf of my constituents who live in what should be a pleasant residential area, but which for decades has been blighted and unjustifiably stigmatised as a result of the nuisance and disturbance associated with street prostitution and, latterly, window prostitution. The area is on the edge of my constituency and also includes part of the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who have been notified about the debate.
My concerns are not specifically directed against the concept of sex for sale, however distasteful that concept may appear. It could be argued that prostitutes provide a valuable service. Over the past couple of years, I have taken every opportunity to talk with my constituents, with residents in so-called red light districts in other parts of the country, with prostitutes working on the streets from windows and massage parlours, as well as with the police and other agencies—health workers, academics and so on.
I have come to the conclusion that we must accept that prostitution is, unfortunately, here to stay. Perhaps we would therefore do best to accept that the law should have no role to play in what is, in effect, a commercial transaction between service provider and customer. The law does, however, have a role to play in controlling the harmful social and environmental consequences of prostitution, which is what I want to discuss today.
Last summer, a resident wrote an open letter to me, which was published in the local community magazine. He said:
I know that I'm living in what others call a Red Light district. I have no moral problems with this having spent 3 years in Amsterdam, but it's the disturbances it brings to my children's way of life and my own which concern me.
Until two weeks ago when police launched a special initiative to control the volume of traffic in the area I was forced to sleep downstairs to protect my children from men knocking on my front door and shouting abuse at the windows. And that's sometimes as early as 7 o'clock on Sunday mornings. You see we are forced to keep the same hours as the prostitutes. Rest comes at about 3 am.
Living on this road, its assumed we're another 'working house' and we're on view to the sightseers and kerb crawlers as much as the 'women in the windows'. My kids have been forced to get used to people prying into our windows, looking through the gaps in the curtains, or putting faces and hands through the letterbox. Mistaken identities are an everyday hazard if you live here. People in the streets think I'm a pimp and my daughter has been propositioned—and she's only 10.
My kids are streetwise—they have to be to survive in this area. They pass drug dealers, prostitutes, and pimps every day they walk to school. Kids can't play normally here …I'm not against the individual women—it's their choice of living, but as a resident I'm fed up with the disturbance it causes. You're denied a social life. If I bring a girlfriend to my house, people assume she's a prostitute or she feels uncomfortable with a vice patrol van outside.
Another resident, Mr. Khan, wrote to me:
They have spoiled our livelihood. We have worked hard to buy our houses. At that time, the situation was not as bad as it is now. Residents are being intimidated, harassed and abused. The police have done what they can, but their hands are tied.
Significantly, he adds:
We do not just want to clean up our streets but also ask politicians to find a permanent solution for the prostitutes.

An officer of one of the local residents associations has told me thzit people are desperate to find a solution. Police powers and effectiveness are limited by the terms of current legislation. He asks us to explore ways in which to provide more effective legislation to rid not only that area but all residential areas of the problems of street prostitution.
There is no doubt that from a resident's perspective prostitution creates a poor environmental image and attracts a high volume of traffic, not just from kerb-crawling clients, but from sightseers. There is often noise into the early hours of the morning and litter of the ordinary type plus used condoms and tissues. An atmosphere of fear is created for female residents and children. There is also no doubt that the current legal framework is ineffective in dealing with residents' concerns. My constituents recognise that, but the Government do not.
In January 1993, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Home Secretary what plans he had to review the laws on prostitution. The then Home Office Minister responded in the following terms:
We consider that the criminal law is well placed to deal with the nuisance caused by prostitution and have no present plans to review the law in this area."—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 597.]
And they have not.
Given the continuing nuisance to residents that I have just described, does not that response show how out of touch the Government are with the realities of life? Yes, there are laws against prostitutes soliciting and against kerb crawling, but those are effective only when the police mount high-profile clamp-downs which they cannot keep up for long because of the high cost in police resources. I am advised that the West Midlands police spend about £500,000 policing this area in Balsall Heath. In 1993, 724 women were arrested for prostitution, 147 were cautioned, there were 127 summonses for kerb crawling and 528 letters were sent to men cruising in their cars. Still the nuisance remains.
The only aspect of the law that the Government show any inclination to reform is the persistence requirement in section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985. That might make it slightly easier to nail a kerb crawler but, as the figures show, that is being done anyway with little impact on the problem. In fact, the need to show persistence can be avoided by the use of the nuisance provision in section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act, following from the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Paul in 1989. Section 115 of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1980 can be used against cruising kerb crawling, and there are also provisions in section 5 of the Criminal. Justice and Public Order Act which can be used against nuisance.
A review by Inspector Robert Golding of Hampshire constabulary—which covers Southampton—shows that an array of laws can be used against kerb crawlers and prostitution, but only if the police are present on a more or less permanent basis.
Residents know that the current laws of themselves do not work. That is why, in Balsall Heath, they have taken their own action to highlight the problems. For the past four weeks, groups of residents have positioned themselves on every street corner where prostitutes used to ply their trade. This involved hundreds of local people who were there from mid-morning until the early hours. They are still


there when I pass through on my way home from this place in the early hours of Friday morning and I have stopped to talk to them on those and other occasions.
They say to me, "Why should we have to do this to make our streets pleasant to live in? What are the politicians and the Government going to do to find a permanent solution?" They are realistic enough to realise that, just like the police, they cannot keep that level of activity up for ever—and even if they could, the problem would only move to other areas.
While they would like to believe that arrests and prosecutions will solve the problem, they know from experience that the current system of arresting prostitutes, fining them and turning them back on to the streets to pay off their fines only perpetuates the problem. There is even a recognition that current policing practices exacerbates potential sexually transmitted diseases and health risks.
The Balsall Heath residents' action group says that prostitution cannot be eradicated, but that it can be controlled and managed so as to reduce medical problems and impose as little strain as possible on local people. 'They understand that there is a strong economic base to prostitution. Few women choose it as a profession but, having entered, the incentive is strong to remain in it. 'They have called for the establishment of "zones of tolerance" where prostitution is legal. Their call was echoed by the whole community and by politicians of all political parties at a public meeting tonight.
I do not say that that is necessarily the whole answer, but it is one idea which should perhaps be tried. One thing is for sure—it would require a change in the law. Is it not now time for a radical review of the legislation to provide a legal framework which will allow prostitutes to advertise their services and meet clients in a manner which does not cause nuisance or offence, reduces the exploitation of women by those who wish to live off their earnings and encourages responsible behaviour in the prevention of sexually transmitted disease?
Time and again it has been shown that attempts to bring criminal law enforcement into sexual disease control has not been at all effective. An editorial in an issue of the British Medical Journal last November said that the decriminalisation of prostitution would enable prostitutes to organise and exercise more control over clients, and would promote the provision of health care. That is the view of health workers operating in Balsall Heath and other areas.
I therefore return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. We should perhaps view prostitution merely as a service which should be tolerated, provided that it does not cause nuisance. The logical action would then be to remove the laws which prevent prostitutes from advertising their services and which make it illegal for them to work discreetly in small groups for their own safety and security. That is what prostitutes themselves want, and that is what a growing number, people—including many police officers, and even a representative from the Mothers' Union who participated in a radio debate with me this morning—see as a solution. Is it not time the Government caught up with public opinion and really got to grips with tackling the problem?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Daviid Maclean): I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), because she has raised an interesting subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has followed the debate closely. He informed me of the difficulties and concerns that he has in his constituency, especially in the Chapeltown district of Leeds.
I shall begin by explaining the function and powers of the criminal law, in relation to prostitution. Then I shall talk a little of the role of the police, both generally and in the hon. Member's constituency.
Under our law, prostitution is not an illegal activity. A woman—or even a man—may sell sexual services, as long as the activities are not unlawful. The Government nevertheless recognise that prostitution can be the origin of a very serious nuisance to members of the public. It also often involves the exploitation of vulnerable members of the community, so a wide range of sanctions are available to deal with the criminal activities that tend to accompany prostitution. The Government believe that the law is already adequate to deal with the vast majority of criminal activity.
The criminal law has two main aims: first, to prevent the serious nuisance to the public caused when prostitutes ply their trade in the streets; and, secondly, to prevent and to penalise those who encourage, control or exploit the prostitution of others.
So far as nuisance in the street is concerned, the Street Offences Act 1959 makes it an offence for a woman to loiter or solicit in a street, or other public place, for the purposes of prostitution. That is punishable by a maximum fine of £500 for a first offence, and of £1,000 for subsequent offences. The 1959 Act also confers on a constable the power to arrest, without warrant, anyone he finds in a street or public place and suspects, with reasonable cause, of committing such an offence.
The Sexual Offences Act 1985 provides other important: provisions to tackle street prostitution. The Act made it an offence persistently to solicit a woman for prostitution in a public place, and it made kerb crawling an offence. Offences under the Act are punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000. That was an example of the Government keeping in touch with public opinion and concern, and moving to change the law in 1985 to deal with that new manifestation of a public nuisance.
Although the hon. Member is especially concerned with the nuisance caused by prostitution, the criminal law has another aim in that area—to deal with those who seek to encourage or exploit prostitution. That is the heart of the matter and where the real wickedness lies, so under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, it is an offence punishable by a maximum of seven years' imprisonment to live off the earnings of another person's prostitution, or to control a prostitute. It is also an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment to procure a woman with threats, or to encourage or cause a girl under 16 to be a prostitute. A number of offences relating to brothel keeping carry a maximum of six months' imprisonment.
I have set out the powers available under the criminal law. It is the Government's job to ensure that those powers are sufficient to enable the prosecuting authorities to deal effectively with the problem.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Is it not a fact that, in 1991, 79 convictions were brought against people living on the earnings of prostitution? There were similarly very few prosecutions for the other offences that the Minister mentioned, when compared with the number of prosecutions of prostitutes. The laws clearly exist, but they are not having an effect and dealing with the problem.

Mr. Maclean: I disagree. The hon. Lady cites the number of prosecutions, but she did not cite the penalties applicable in each case. It stands to reason that there are fewer prosecutions against those controlling prostitutes, as there are fewer people at that end of the trade than there are plying the streets. One pimp could control quite a few prostitutes. It is inevitable that there will be more prosecutions against those who are out creating the nuisance on the streets.
Nevertheless, I support police action against those people who are living off immoral earnings, or are controlling and keeping prostitutes, because that is often where the real evil lies, and where one sees appalling violence and exploitation. If those people are legitimately harassed by the police and rounded up and prosecuted, we are getting a good service that serves, in any case, to diminish the amount of prostitution.
The police resources dedicated to preventing and prosecuting those people involved in prostitution are a matter for each individual chief constable. It is not a matter of the Government dictating priorities to chief constables around the country on the level of resources that they should allocate to deal with prostitution in their area. Each chief constable must decide on his force's operational priorities and objectives and, of course, he needs to take local needs into account.
The commitment of the West Midlands police to enforcing the law against prostitution cannot be doubted, and it can be seen clearly from the number of persons arrested and charged with offences. In 1993, about 1,900 people were prosecuted for prostitution and a further 193 people were prosecuted for kerb crawling.
Police action is directed towards reducing the number of prostitutes and kerb crawlers by increasing police patrols in the worst affected areas. That tactic is having some success in Balsall Heath, where previously a survey had revealed that on average 2,000 vehicles a day were being driven by kerb crawlers into a small cul de sac. Another campaign of the same sort has been launched in the Edgbaston area following consultation between the police and local residents.
Elsewhere in the country, the police are having most success where they work in close partnership with local authorities and other agencies to "design out" crime. In the King's Cross area of London, for example, local authorities follow up police action with environmental changes, such as improvements in street lighting and traffic management, to make the area unattractive to prostitutes and their clients. One-way streets and road closures have made it difficult for prospective kerb crawlers to operate. That has created an increased sense of safety and pride in the community.
It is, of course, not unusual in a case where the police, for whatever reason, have not dealt with a matter to the satisfaction of the parties concerned, to hear calls for changes in the law. We have had calls to toughen up the laws on prostitution and to increase the powers of courts and police; however, we have also had calls to liberalise

the law and to allow licensed brothels or toleration zones where prostitutes can operate away from residential areas without interference from the law. The police, however, have shown that it is possible to tackle the problems caused by prostitution in residential areas. It must be a determined, collaborative effort with the local community, but it can be done.
Toleration zones would mean that the criminal law would be disapplied in a particular area. We would pretend that the criminal law did not exist. We have no intention of legalising activities surrounding prostitution, either as a matter of general application or in specific geographical areas. The concept of toleration zones, where one turns a blind eye to breaches of the law, sets a dangerous precedent for the criminal law. Although it could possibly and theoretically deal with the nuisance problem, it would not deal with the evil aspect of prostitution: vicious pimps controlling prostitutes; in fact, it would make that aspect of the problem much worse.
If we accepted toleration zones, we would give a free licence to all those people who live off immoral earnings and control and abuse prostitutes to continue their evil work not only unabated but with Government encouragement. That is not right.
As for kerb crawling, the Government have made it clear that we consider that the need to prove persistence, nuisance or annoyance on the part of a kerb crawler is a difficult and unnecessary barrier to the effective operation of the powers. That requirement was originally incorporated into the legislation because Parliament was concerned that innocent people would otherwise be prosecuted. We now consider that those fears were excessive, and that it would be worth while tightening up the law by removing the need to prove persistence.
A private Member's Bill to achieve just that was introduced, with full Government support, in 1990. Unfortunately, a small group of Members of Parliament —notably the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—deliberately prolonged the debate beyond the point where the measure could reach the statute book. We have since made a commitment to reintroduce the measure as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle can be found. If the hon. Lady is successful in the next ballot for private Members' Bills, I hope that she will introduce the measure, and that she will prevail on the hon. Member for Brent, East not to block it.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the Minister really think that that is an answer to the problem? Police officers to whom I have spoken have told me that they are perfectly able to use the present array of laws to deal with kerb crawling, but that they have to be present all the time to implement them.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady called for new Government action, but there is already adequate criminal law to deal with the problems of prostitution and we have proposed a small change that we believe would help to tackle kerb crawling. There is no magic panacea that the Government can adopt, thereby introducing new powers, making changes or turning a blind eye to the evils of controlling prostitutes as an experiment with toleration zones. I suggest that that would be a damaging experiment to try. Many vulnerable women would suffer abominably if the Government and police decided to turn a blind eye and to permit toleration zones.
I suggest that the existing laws to deal with the problem are adequate, and it is for local police forces to enforce them according to priorities in local areas. The law works best where legal action is coupled with action by local authorities to design out aspects of the local environment that might encourage prostitution. We have seen some notable successes in the country; there are some good

examples that other local authorities should emulate. I commend chat action to the hon. Lady, rather than dangerous experiments that have a simplistic appeal but have not been fully thought through.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Eleven o ' clock.